Conference Agenda

Suicide remains a leading cause of death among men in the UK, with stigma, isolation, and reluctance to seek help contributing to the crisis. This presentation outlines the implementation and expansion of a UK community-based suicide prevention service designed for men in acute distress, operating across four cities (Liverpool, Newcastle, London, and Birmingham). The service provides immediate, accessible support in safe, non-clinical spaces where men feel comfortable engaging.

The James’ Place model emphasises early intervention, peer-led support, and collaboration with local agencies, ensuring timely help without barriers. Key components include therapeutic sessions, ‘Lay your Cards on the Table’ intervention, peer support programs, and involvement of supporters that foster connection and resilience. By prioritising trust, dignity, and cultural sensitivity, the service addresses the unique challenges men face in seeking mental health support.

The collective research represents the first seven years of its evolution—from a small charity proving a new intervention could work, to a growing four-centre organisation with an evidence base demonstrating how and why the therapy succeeds for thousands of men. The commitment to service development and research continues as the service builds internal capacity and establishes a national research steering group.

Over 8000 men have been referred to James’ Place between August 2018 and August 2025. Demographic information was gathered via Equality and Monitoring forms, and outcomes were measured using CORE-10 and Entrapment Scale (E-SF) at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention stages. Across the cohort, there was statistically significant reduction in mean scores between initial assessment and the end of treatment (p<0.05). The results indicate a notable improvement in the wellbeing of men arriving in crisis when therapy was provided across centres and different demographics.

To conclude, we will share research findings, best practices, success stories, and insights into scaling this model nationally to transform suicide prevention and save lives.

Suicide prevention is a task for society as a whole, in which numerous actors should bear responsibility and support each other. Suicide prevention should not be the sole responsibility of state institutions and regulation. Civil society activities enable suicide prevention by: Participation: Civil society actors have direct access to individuals committed to suicide prevention. Awareness raising: Through their practical work, information and education, civil society organisations remove the taboo concerning suicidality and promote knowledge about suicidal experiences and behaviour and the responsible handling of suicidality in society. Technology transfer: Innovative suicide prevention strategies are developed through cooperation between science and practice. Mobilisation: Civil society engagement mobilises private funding and social, political and voluntary engagement..

In Germany, the National Suicide Prevention Programme initiative has been developed on the basis of civil society engagement. After 25 years, it is now a network that brings together up to 200 active members from science, practice and administration in 22 working groups for constructive discourse. The result is a wealth of materials for suicide prevention work and training in areas such as counselling, media, the justice system, the elderly, young people, survivors of suicide and many more. Those involved include suicide researchers from research and teaching, employees from the health sector and from counselling and therapy, employees from ministries and authorities, committed actors from culture and the media, etc. The work is supported by the ALLIANCE for Suicide Prevention. It consists of 50 state and civil society organisations that support suicide prevention. The suicide prevention programme is accompanied by an international scientific advisory board.

The involvement of civil society actors does not replace government action and initiatives. The article aims to show how suicide prevention can be made more effective, accepted, sustainable, robust, creative and democratic through the organised involvement of civil society actors.

Introduction:

In 2025, researchers affiliated with the University of Gothenburg Center for Person-centered Care (GPCC) published two research papers highlighting person-centered approaches to suicide prevention, emphasizing partnership, continuity, and the integration of lived experience in care. Earlier that same year, Sweden presented a new national strategy for mental health and suicide prevention, with overarching goals of improved population mental health, fewer lives lost to suicide, and reduced preventable inequalities. This presentation describes an ongoing local implementation initiative in which psychiatric services at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (Gothenburg, Sweden) collaborate with suicide-preventive non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to translate research findings and lived experience into everyday clinical practice.

Methods:

A recurring, open web-based collaboration forum was established and hosted weekly via Microsoft Teams. Staff from psychiatric units and representatives from the NGOs Riksförbundet för Suicidprevention och Efterlevandestöd (SPES), Suicide Zero, and the Swedish Partnership for Mental Health (NSPH) were invited to participate. An “anthill tactic” was used, meaning participation was voluntary and flexible, allowing contributors to engage when relevant to their expertise and availability. During the first three months, nearly 60 individuals participated, with an average of 8–15 participants per meeting. The meetings enabled shifting constellations for discussion and focused on co-producing concrete, person-centered clinical practices.

Results:

As the project is ongoing, updated results will be presented at the conference. Preliminary findings indicate increased shared understanding between professionals and individuals with lived experience. Key focus areas include person-centered suicide risk assessment, collaborative safety planning, and structured follow-up during and after suicidal crises.

Conclusions:

The project illustrates how person-centered suicide prevention can be implemented through sustained co-production between clinical services and civil society organizations. By combining research evidence, lived experience, and clinical expertise, this approach supports the translation of research and policy into meaningful, feasible, and practice-oriented suicide preventive care.

Suicide prevention practice often focuses on crisis points, ‘saving’ people from death, while intervening minimally in the circumstances that may have contributed to their suicidality (White 2017). Such approaches are built into many nations’ statutory ‘helping’ systems (Hagen et al. 2024). These centre clinical crisis intervention and surveillance, reproducing top-down, Eurocentric models of ‘care’ and thought. In this paper, we consider alternative approaches to supporting those at risk of, or affected by, suicidality; centring instead Indigenous, lived-experience, community and peer-led approaches to suicide prevention, a currently under-researched area.

We present findings from a meta-ethnography [PROSPERO protocol registration CRD42024608281] of peer-reviewed qualitative studies on community and/or peer-initiated and led interventions for suicide. Systematic searching resulted in a pool of 18,348 unique studies. Of these, 42 were ultimately included for data extraction and synthesis.

Our analysis organised papers into those presenting, with some overlap, the establishment (n=28), implementation/activities (n=15), and/or evaluation (n=18) of interventions, exploring themes both within and across these discrete areas.

Emerging translational synthesis across the paper categories highlights the importance of cultural embeddedness and community/peer leadership, social identity and connection, and grassroots innovation in programming and communication as critical to the development and implementation of successful suicide prevention interventions. Tellingly, 24/42 papers centred projects embedded in Indigenous communities around the world, emphasising Indigenous leadership as at the forefront of suicide prevention innovation (Ansloos et al. 2024).

Our review highlights the importance of evidencing community practice through qualitative research, rather than focusing exclusively on clinical intervention and large-scale, quantitative studies. Rather, this meta-ethnography demonstrates the successes (and challenges) experienced by communities and peer groups in offering alternatives to the often-limited statutory options for suicide prevention. This synthesis presents a step toward understanding the meaning of these studies as a collective, pointing to practical opportunities for grassroots-led, empowering suicide prevention practice.

Introduction: Suicide is a leading cause of death among men worldwide, highlighting the need for suicide prevention interventions that are both acceptable and effective to men. This study examined perceptions of the short- and long-term outcomes and acceptability of the James’ Place Model (JPM), a brief therapeutic intervention delivered within a community-setting for men experiencing suicidal crisis. Also, factors influencing engagement of men with lived experience of suicidality in research were explored.

Methods: A mixed methods longitudinal case study design was used. Quantitative data was collated through baseline, 3- and 6-month follow up questionnaires distributed to 28 men receiving the JPM. Measures of resilience, hope, generalised self-efficacy, self-compassion, loneliness, perceived social support, entrapment, and the 10-item clinical outcomes in routine evaluation measure were taken, and merged with routine service data. Two semi-structured interviews informed development of case studies exploring men’s perceived acceptability and short- and long-term effectiveness of the JPM, and factors relating to suicide research engagement.

Results: Descriptive analyses showed decreased mean entrapment scores and increased mean self-compassion scores at 3-month follow-up. Entrapment scores further decreased at 6 months, while self-compassion scores remained similar. Case studies highlighted the perceived acceptability of the JPM, with the “lay your cards on the table” component supporting men to articulate factors underpinning their suicidality. Men also reported continued use of strategies developed during the intervention, including safety planning.

Conclusions: The JPM was perceived as acceptable among men experiencing suicidal crisis, particularly due to tailored intervention components and delivery by specialised suicide prevention therapists. Future research should determine whether the short-term effectiveness of the JPM is sustained long-term. However, consideration must be given to overcoming the practical challenges associated with engaging men in longitudinal suicide prevention research.