Randomized trial shows high satisfaction and suggests improved suicide prevention in people living with HIV, indicating potential for broader applications.
Objective: People living with HIV (PLWH) face greatly elevated risk of mental health challenges, including suicide. In Tanzania, there is a critical shortage of providers and interventions to address suicide risk. The three-session IDEAS for Hope intervention is delivered by telehealth, combining universal suicide screening in HIV care, adherence strategies, HIV-related stigma reduction, and problem solving. Methods: We identified 60 PLWH experiencing suicidal ideation at two HIV clinics in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania and randomized them 1:1 to receive an evidence-based safety planning intervention or IDEAS for Hope. Participants completed surveys at baseline and three-month follow-up with mixed-methods assessments of feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy to reduce suicidal ideation and improve HIV care engagement. Results: Session attendance was high at 88% and intervention fidelity, quality, and counseling skills exceeded pre-established thresholds in 94% of sessions. Participants were very satisfied with the counselors and helpfulness of the intervention to reduce suicide risk and improve care engagement. Participants in both trial arms achieved near-total recovery in suicidal thoughts (Cramer’s V=.07, p =.617). Between-arm differences in HIV treatment adherence were non-significant but showed moderate effects in favor of the intervention (Cramer’s V=.18, p =.760). In qualitative feedback, participants described improvements in coping, social support, and problem-solving for economic empowerment, which fostered a renewed sense of hope. Conclusions: IDEAS for Hope is a feasible and acceptable intervention that reduced suicide risk and improved HIV care engagement in this cohort. A larger clinical trial will be powered to determine comparative effectiveness, evaluate mechanisms of change, and inform future implementation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knettel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: