We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Interventions at frequently used suicide locations that restrict access to means, encourage help-seeking, and increase the likelihood of intervention by a third party are effective in preventing suicide at such sites. However, there have been concerns that such efforts may displace suicides to other sites. It is important to synthesize the evidence on suicide displacement effects.
Methods
We conducted a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google for eligible studies from their inception to February 20, 2025. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the pooled effects of interventions on suicides at frequently used locations and other sites, and on overall suicides involving the same method.
Results
Our search identified 17 studies. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in suicides at the intervention sites (pooled incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.04–0.21) and no evidence of changes in suicides at other sites after restricting access to means was deployed alone. The pooled IRR for nearby sites (same type) was 0.99 (95% CI 0.72–1.38); for other sites (same type), it was 0.99 (95% CI 0.76–1.29); and for other sites (different/unspecified type), it was 1.19 (95% CI 0.90–1.58). There was an overall reduction in suicides involving the same method during the post-intervention period (IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65–0.92). Similar patterns were observed when restricting access to means was assessed alone or with other interventions.
Conclusions
Suicide numbers at other sites did not change after interventions such as restricting access to means were deployed at frequently used locations.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.