Background Establishing primary psychological healthcare system to prevent suicide was eagerly advocated. However, it remains unclear whether such policy-driven and low-cost healthcare systems could be practical, especially with equal benefits for underrepresented children/adolescents. We aimed to examine the real-world practical effects of primary psychological healthcare system in preventing suicide ideation among children/adolescents, particularly underprivileged ones. Method and Findings The study employed an observational, multi-center, population-based and longitudinal design. 19,140 children/adolescents sampled from lower- and middle-income areas of western China (Nanchong) with 1-year followed-ups were included, of which majority to underrepresented underprivileged ones. The primary outcome was the incidence for reporting severe suicide ideation after practicing primary psychological healthcare system at 0.5-year and 1-year follow-ups, as contrasts to baseline. Subgroup analysis was conducted to examine the equal benefits of system for underrepresented children/adolescents. After instigating such system, the risks of reporting suicide ideation for included children/adolescents were found significantly lower compared with the control group at 0.5-year (adjust odds ratios [aOR] 0.28, 95%CI 0.23-0.33; p<0.001) and 1-year follow-ups (aOR 0.28, 95%CI 0.23-0.33; p<0.001). The effects were also observed among underrepresented children/adolescents including “left-behind” children/adolescents, “single-parent” children/adolescents and children/adolescents in especially difficult circumstance (CEDC, all pcorrected < 0.001). The effects in CEDC and “left-behind” children/adolescents were found non-inferior to typical developing cohort (all pcorrected < 0.01). Conclusions Primary psychological healthcare system was practically effective in reducing risks of suicide ideation in children/adolescents in 1-year, at least, but not yet with fully equal benefits for all the underprivileged ones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: