Developing a service taxonomy for suicide prevention in Australia: the Australian Suicide Prevention Planning Model (AuSPPM)
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction The human and economic impact of suicide is significant. Services to prevent suicide, support persons experiencing suicidal distress, and their family and friends, are critical to reducing suicide rates. However, in Australia, guidance on the amount and mix of suicide prevention specific services required to meet population needs is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a service taxonomy for suicide prevention as the first step in the development of an Australian suicide prevention needs-based planning model (i.e., the Australian Suicide Prevention Planning Model (AuSPPM)).MethodsA desktop review was undertaken to identify potential service types for inclusion in the taxonomy. The scope of the search was restricted to services, programs, initiatives, or campaigns that specifically aim to address or prevent suicidal distress and target whole populations, sub-populations, groups, families, and/or individuals. An initial draft taxonomy was developed based on search findings. Feedback on the draft taxonomy was provided by persons working within service planning, government and policy related roles, academics, clinicians, and persons with lived experience. A final search was conducted to locate further information to accurately describe all service types for inclusion and their evidence base.ResultsThe final taxonomy included: (1) a set of nine ‘critical enablers’ for an effective suicide prevention system that should underpin all other service types represented in the taxonomy, and (2) five service streams comprising 32 nested service categories, and 36 service elements. Some key feedback from the sector in terms of development of the taxonomy included the need for significant emphasis on upstream supports, the inclusion of services related to other areas of wellbeing, the early identification of distress, and the provision of brief supports and service navigation. ConclusionThe service taxonomy may be used to inform planning and policy related decisions and is an important component of the overarching needs-based planning model. In the future, it may be refined to include services specific to populations disproportionately impacted by suicide. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of service types included in the taxonomy.