Spittal Matthew J, Fedyszyn Izabela, Middleton Aves, Bassilios Bridget, Gunn Jane, Woodward Alan, Pirkis Jane
Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;49(1):54-64. doi: 10.1177/0004867414541154. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
Frequent callers present a challenge for crisis helplines, which strive to achieve optimal outcomes for all callers within finite resources. This study aimed to describe frequent callers to Lifeline (the largest crisis helpline in Australia) and compare them with non-frequent callers, with a view to furthering knowledge about models of service delivery that might meet the needs of frequent callers.
Lifeline provided an anonymous dataset on calls made between December 2011 and May 2013. We assumed calls from the same (encrypted) phone number were made by the same person, and aggregated call level data up to the person level. Individuals who made 0.667 calls per day in any period from 1 week to the full 549 days for which we had data (i.e. 4.7 calls in 7 days, 20 calls in 30 days, 40 calls in 60 days, etc.) were regarded as frequent callers.
Our analysis dataset included 411,725 calls made by 98,174 individuals, 2594 (2.6%) of whom met our definition of frequent callers. We identified a number of predictors of being a frequent caller, including being male or transgender, and never having been married. The odds increased with age until 55-64 years, and then declined. Suicidality, self-harm, mental health issues, crime, child protection and domestic violence issues all predicted being a frequent caller.
Collectively, frequent callers have a significant impact on crisis lines, and solutions need to be found for responding to them that are in everybody's best interests (i.e. the frequent callers themselves, other callers, telephone crisis supporters who staff crisis lines, and those who manage crisis lines). In striking this balance, the complex and multiple needs of frequent callers must be taken into account.
频繁来电者给危机求助热线带来了挑战,这些热线致力于在有限资源内为所有来电者实现最佳结果。本研究旨在描述生命线热线(澳大利亚最大的危机求助热线)的频繁来电者,并将他们与非频繁来电者进行比较,以期增进对可能满足频繁来电者需求的服务提供模式的了解。
生命线热线提供了2011年12月至2013年5月期间来电的匿名数据集。我们假定来自同一个(加密)电话号码的来电是由同一个人拨打的,并将通话级别的数据汇总到个人层面。在我们有数据的从1周到整整549天的任何时间段内,每天拨打0.667次电话的个人(即7天内拨打4.7次电话、30天内拨打20次电话、60天内拨打40次电话等)被视为频繁来电者。
我们的分析数据集包括98174个人拨打的411725次电话,其中2594人(2.6%)符合我们对频繁来电者的定义。我们确定了一些成为频繁来电者的预测因素,包括男性或跨性别者,以及从未结婚。这种可能性随着年龄增长至55 - 64岁,然后下降。自杀倾向、自我伤害、心理健康问题、犯罪、儿童保护和家庭暴力问题都预示着会成为频繁来电者。
总体而言,频繁来电者对危机热线有重大影响,需要找到符合各方最佳利益的应对方案(即频繁来电者自身、其他来电者、为危机热线提供服务的电话危机支持人员以及管理危机热线的人员)。在实现这种平衡时,必须考虑到频繁来电者复杂多样的需求。