↓ Skip to main content

Development of suicide postvention guidelines for secondary schools: a Delphi study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
33 news outlets
twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of suicide postvention guidelines for secondary schools: a Delphi study
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2822-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgina R. Cox, Eleanor Bailey, Anthony F. Jorm, Nicola J. Reavley, Kate Templer, Alex Parker, Debra Rickwood, Sunil Bhar, Jo Robinson

Abstract

Suicide of school-aged adolescents is a significant problem, with serious implications for students and staff alike. To date, there is a lack of evidence regarding the most effective way for a secondary school to respond to the suicide of a student, termed postvention [(Crisis 33:208-214, 2012), (Crisis 34:164-182, 2013)]. The aim of this study was to employ the expert consensus (Delphi) methodology to the development of a set of guidelines, to assist English-speaking secondary schools to develop a plan to respond to a student suicide, or to respond to a suicide in the absence of a predetermined plan. The Delphi methodology was employed, which involved a two-stage process. Firstly, medical and research databases, existing postvention guidelines developed for schools, and lay literature were searched in order to identify potential actions that school staff could carry out following the suicide of a student. Based on this search, an online questionnaire was produced. Secondly, 40 experts in the area of suicide postvention from English-speaking countries were recruited and asked to rate each action contained within this questionnaire, in terms of how important they felt it was to be included in the postvention guidelines. A set of guidelines was developed based on these responses. In total, panel members considered 965 actions across three consensus rounds. Five hundred fourty-eight actions were endorsed for inclusion into the postvention guidelines based on an 80 % consensus agreement threshold. These actions were groups according to common themes, which are presented in the following sections: 1. Developing an Emergency Response Plan; 2. Forming an Emergency Response Team; 3. Activating the Emergency Response Team; 4. Managing a suspected suicide that occurs on school grounds; 5. Liaising with the deceased student's family; 6. Informing staff of the suicide; 7. Informing students of the suicide; 8. Informing parents of the suicide; 9. Informing the wider community of the suicide; 10. Identifying and supporting high-risk students; 11. Ongoing support of students; 12. Ongoing support of staff; 13. Dealing with the media; 14. Internet and social media; 15. The deceased student's belongings; 16. Funeral and memorial; 17. Continued monitoring of students and staff; 18. Documentation; 19. Critical Incident Review and annual review of the ER Plan; 20. Future prevention. Panel members frequently commented on every suicide being 'unique', and the need for flexibility in the guidelines, in order to accommodate the resources available, and the culture of the school community. In order to respond effectively and safely to the suicide of a student, schools need to undertake a variety of postvention actions. These are the first set of postvention guidelines produced worldwide for secondary schools that are based on expert opinion using the Delphi method.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Latvia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 18%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 50 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 274. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2021.
All research outputs
#91,489
of 21,224,592 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#78
of 13,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,868
of 279,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,224,592 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them