Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2013 Mar 9;13:214. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-214.
'Suicide hotspots' include tall structures (for example, bridges and cliffs), railway tracks, and isolated locations (for example, rural car parks) which offer direct means for suicide or seclusion that prevents intervention.
We searched Medline for studies that could inform the following question: 'What interventions are available to reduce suicides at hotspots, and are they effective?'
There are four main approaches: (a) restricting access to means (through installation of physical barriers); (b) encouraging help-seeking (by placement of signs and telephones); (c) increasing the likelihood of intervention by a third party (through surveillance and staff training); and (d) encouraging responsible media reporting of suicide (through guidelines for journalists). There is relatively strong evidence that reducing access to means can avert suicides at hotspots without substitution effects. The evidence is weaker for the other approaches, although they show promise.
More well-designed intervention studies are needed to strengthen this evidence base.
“自杀热点”包括高层结构（例如，桥梁和悬崖）、铁路轨道和孤立地点（例如，农村停车场），这些地点提供了直接自杀或隔离的手段，从而阻止了干预。
我们在 Medline 上搜索了可以回答以下问题的研究：“有哪些干预措施可用于减少热点地区的自杀行为，它们是否有效？”
有四种主要方法：（a）通过安装物理障碍物来限制手段的获取；（b）通过放置标志和电话来鼓励寻求帮助；（c）通过监视和员工培训来增加第三方干预的可能性；（d）通过记者指南来鼓励负责任的媒体报道自杀。有相对较强的证据表明，减少手段的获取可以避免热点地区的自杀行为，而不会产生替代效应。其他方法的证据较弱，但也有希望。
需要更多精心设计的干预研究来加强这一证据基础。
