Promoting bystander interventions is a core strategy to prevent suicides in public places, but little is known about how people with lived experience perceive this intervention.

To explore people’s experiences of receiving an intervention during a suicide attempt on the railways.

Interviews were conducted with 28 people with experience of receiving a bystander intervention during a suicide attempt on the railways. Interview data were triangulated with an online ethnography exploring posts made on forums and similar platforms openly discussing suicide.

Using reflexive thematic analysis, five themes were generated: (a) ‘I’m a good actor… we all carry a mask’: concealing feelings and intentions; (b) ‘It kind of draws your attention away but it doesn’t almost shine a spotlight’: interventions should be gentle and not draw more attention; (c) ‘People that were getting in my way were just making me want to try harder’: interventions can trigger difficult feelings in the moment; (d) ‘I did feel different, I felt better’: the power of small talk; and (e) ‘You feel like a human being and you feel like they actually care’: wanting to feel cared for.

Findings suggested that some people actively avoid receiving an intervention by concealing how they are feeling in that moment. Interventions that are gentle and do not draw attention may be preferable, such as making small talk and simple gestures such as smiling or being near the individual. Conversely, more intrusive or aggressive interventions may be triggering and exacerbate suicidality.

This study sought to assess undergraduate students’ knowledge and attitudes surrounding perceived self-efficacy and threats in various common emergencies in communities of higher education.

Self-reported perceptions of knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes and beliefs regarding education and training, obligation to respond, safety, psychological readiness, efficacy, personal preparedness, and willingness to respond were investigated through 3 representative scenarios via a web-based survey.

Among 970 respondents, approximately 60% reported their university had adequately prepared them for various emergencies while 84% reported the university should provide such training. Respondents with high self-efficacy were significantly more likely than those with low self-efficacy to be willing to respond in whatever capacity needed across all scenarios.

There is a gap between perceived student preparedness for emergencies and training received. Students with high self-efficacy were the most likely to be willing to respond, which may be useful for future training initiatives.