Theoretical Background: Suicide is among the leading causes of death for young people and a major public health concern. While intervention programs targeting youth at risk seem promising, more research is warranted to determine what works for whom. The HEYLiFE universal school-based suicide prevention program aims to promote three putative protective factors, namely, knowledge about mental health, agency, and help-seeking intention in students aged 14 years and older. While its overall efficacy was confirmed previously, specific effects in adolescents with different risk profiles remain to be determined. Objective: We explored whether program efficacy differed for students aged 14 – 18 years (mean age M= 16.2 years, SD = 1.2 years) at low, medium, and high risk for suicidality. Method: A pre–post within-group comparison trial was designed to evaluate the HEYLiFE suicide prevention program in a convenience sample of 304 adolescents from five public schools. The data of 218 adolescents (45.2 % female) with completed data sets were analyzed. Using a two-step cluster analysis, we identified three distinct at-risk clusters for suicidality based on self-reported suicidality, depression, impulsivity/carelessness, and avoidance. We then applied a mixed-model analysis of covariance to evaluate program efficacy in these clusters. Results: While knowledge improved to a similar degree across all clusters, agency and help-seeking intentions improved in the low- and medium-risk cluster but not in the high-risk cluster. Efficacy across time ranged from small to medium effects. Conclusion: Our results confirm that the HEYLiFE suicide prevention program is efficacious for the majority of students. The promotion of protective factors among students with different risk profiles is a viable strategy for universal suicide prevention, although efforts are warranted to specifically target individuals exhibiting the greatest risk for suicide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knappe et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: