Conference Agenda

Findings from international studies show that 1 in 3 university students report thoughts of suicide, that these thoughts persist through university, and are associated with significant drop out and mental illness. This work laid the foundation for the development of COMPAS, a novel screening tool with an inbuilt algorithm that can identify students at risk of suicide 5 times more accurately than current risk assessments. Our team have trained 100 clinical students in talking about suicide and conducting safety planning, to proactively reach out to at-risk students. Our research shows that this is associated with a 41.7% reduction in odds of suicidal behaviour one year later, and doubles rates of help-seeking which is maintained over one year.

In this presentation I will provide an update on how COMPAS is being implemented across Australia, in partnership with Beyond Blue, headspace, and Lifeline WA. I will provide a breakdown of engagement and outcomes according to: Indigenous status, domestic/international students, enrolment status (e.g. PT/FT), gender, and enrolled Faculty. Initial results suggest that fewer men are engaging with the survey, but rates are higher among students studying online or part time. Both international students and First Nations students are strongly represented. I will also present the lived experience perspective on COMPAS from interviews we have conducted with both students and COMPAS clinicians. COMPAS has been well received with students noting the importance of pro-active outreach, stating they would not otherwise have sought support. Clinicians benefit from the exposure COMPAS affords in working with distressed students and report increased confidence in safety planning and talking about suicide.

Suicide prevention remains a critical public health priority, yet higher education lacks comprehensive training to equip students and staff with the skills to manage mental stress and prevent suicide. The ELLIPSE Resilience Enhancement (ERE) project addresses this gap by developing a scalable, evidence-based online curriculum designed to strengthen academic resilience and integrate suicide prevention into university programs and policies.

The project combines a large-scale needs assessment with innovative e-learning resources, including communication strategies, risk scenarios, and a digital “12 Steps Safety Plan for Academia.” It also promotes cross-national collaboration, notably with Ukrainian institutions, fostering inclusivity and resilience in challenging contexts.

Expected outcomes include a tailored online course offered as an open educational resource, a robust evaluation framework, and policy recommendations for curriculum integration. The initiative will also deliver the European Training Week for Education in Suicidology and establish an alumni network to sustain knowledge exchange.

ERE is implemented through five interdependent work packages covering project management, needs assessment, course development, testing, and impact evaluation. Led by Karlstads universitet (Sweden), the consortium brings together partners from six European countries. By embedding suicide prevention into academic structures and leveraging digital tools, ERE aims to create lasting improvements in student mental health and institutional resilience. The approach is cost-effective, with an estimated return of €31 for every €1 invested.

This project demonstrates how multidisciplinary collaboration and digital innovation can address a pressing educational and public health challenge, offering a model for sustainable integration of suicide prevention in higher education across Europe.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of mental disorders and suicidal thoughts and behaviours in university students, relatively few students engage with support services. Understanding who is less likely to seek help as well as the individual-level perceived barriers that prevent them from engaging with treatment is critical to meet this unmet need.

Methods: As part of New Zealand’s contribution to the World Mental Health International College Surveys (WMH-ICS) initiative, 3,702 first year students completed online self-report surveys. The survey assessed for common mental disorders and suicidal thoughts and behaviours, asked whether respondents had received treatment for their distress in the past 12 months, and explored they perceived any barriers to accessing treatment.

Results: Among students who reported having made a suicide attempt in the past 12 months, only two-thirds (65.0%) had received any formal treatment. Even fewer students reported engagement with treatment services if they had made a suicide plan (46.7%) or experienced suicidal thoughts (32.0%). In unadjusted models, suicide-related outcomes were associated with two-to-four times the odds of seeking help but, after adjusting for demographics variables and experiences of common mental disorders were no more likely to seek help than students with not suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Instead, differences in treatment engagement were explained by demographic characteristics. Similarly, in the fully adjusted models, experiences of suicidal thoughts and behaviours were not found to be associated with any of the assessed barriers to treatment.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that there is a large unmet treatment need for psychological distress among university students in New Zealand and that demographic factors rather than experiences of mental disorder or suicide-related outcomes may account for these differences. Student support services need to account for the group-level differences and individual-level barriers to ensure that the most vulnerable students receive the care and support they need.

Introduction: Debunking suicide prevention myths is a common approach within suicide prevention. However, there is little evidence related to the endorsement of these myths among university students in New Zealand.

Methods: Using a convenience sample of undergraduate students (n = 427), we evaluated student’s agreement with seven suicide prevention myths and considered whether they differ between demographic groups and those with lived experience of suicidal thoughts, behaviours, and bereavement.

Results: The most commonly endorsed myth was “there is a risk that asking someone about suicide will make them start thinking about it” (40.7%) while almost all of the respondents did not endorse the myth that “if a person wants to kill themselves, we should not interfere” (1.6%). Being Asian, having experiences of suicide bereavement, and a history of a previous suicide attempt were associated with greater odds of endorsing some suicide prevention myths. Additionally, while history of making a suicide plan was associated with reduced odds of endorsing some suicide prevention myths.

Discussion: Overall, our study helps to understand university students’ perceptions about suicide prevention myths and demonstrates that some myths were more likely to be endorsed by specific groups, thereby highlighting areas to targeted debunking initiatives.

Introduction: Suicide prevention training for future gatekeepers in higher education remains poorly mapped. Within the international HESP-CCB collaboration, we present preliminary Slovenian findings on students’ exposure to suicide prevention education, perceived competence and training needs.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional convenience-sample online survey among undergraduate and postgraduate students in health, social care, psychology and education-related programmes at Slovenian higher-education institutions, using an online survey platform. We analysed responses from 485 participants (84.1% women; mean age 22.76 years). The 52-item instrument, adapted from the HESP-CCB questionnaire, covers demographics, personal and professional skills, attitudes towards suicide prevention and curriculum-based training.

Results: Overall, 34.3% reported some formal suicide-prevention education; 39.0% were first-year students, who have had fewer opportunities to receive curricular training. Among higher-year students, training exposure varied by discipline (psychology 76.7%, nursing/health sciences 46.3%, education/pedagogy 38.9%, other programmes 17.2%). Among trained students (n=141), most reported limited exposure (four hours or less: 55.3%) and only 11.3% felt adequately prepared to assess/manage suicide risk. Among students without prior training (n=288), 60.8% indicated they would be likely or very likely to enrol in a dedicated course. Perceived curriculum need was high: among 242 students rating the need at their current level, 79.6% reported quite/very high need. Training exposure was associated with more favourable attitudes towards suicide prevention compared with no exposure (ATTS; lower scores indicate more favourable attitudes: 2.08 vs 2.43; t-test p<.001; Cohen’s d ≈ 0.78), and the training group also reported higher perceived preventability (approximately 68% vs 57%; Mann–Whitney p<.001); findings were similar when excluding first-year students.

Conclusions: Preliminary findings indicate substantial gaps in suicide prevention training, even more so in non-clinical disciplines, but also strong motivation for learning and limited confidence among trained students. They highlight the need for more systematic, skills-focused suicide prevention education in Slovenian higher-education.