Formative Evaluation of Suicide Prevention Websites for Men: Qualitative Study with Men at Risk of Suicide and with Potential Gatekeepers.

Abstract

Background: The suicide rate among men exceeds that of women worldwide. One important measure in suicide prevention for men is digital communication interventions, as they enable easy and anonymous access to information resources. This is especially important for men who might not be reached by traditional, in-person prevention methods. Thus, as part of an interdisciplinary project on suicide prevention for men, two specific digital communication prevention measures were developed: (1) a website to inform men at risk about suicide prevention, and (2) a website to educate potential gatekeepers who are in contact with men at risk of suicide about appropriate life-saving measures. Both websites needed evaluation to explore how they are perceived by (1) men and by (2) potential gatekeepers of men at risk of suicide. This is crucial, as existing research lacks formative evaluation that informs the development of intervention communication materials.

Objective: This study aimed to analyze whether these websites were perceived as (1) comprehensible and engaging, (2) authentic and trustworthy, as well as (3) useful by (potential) users. Furthermore, we examined (4) additional ideas for effective communication about suicide prevention.

Methods: We conducted (1) individual videoconference interviews with 24 men to evaluate the website and (2) four focus groups with 8 gatekeepers in each group (32 participants) to evaluate the online education program. The focus group sample was equally distributed regarding gender and age. Recruitment was conducted together with a field research partner who posted adverts on Facebook and Instagram (Meta) to reach as many potential participants as possible in an efficient way. All participants were asked to evaluate the intervention materials using a fictitious scenario of a man experiencing a mental health crisis before the interviews or focus groups took place.

Results: The videos were perceived as (1) catchy, comprehensible, and empathetic, but too long for a short introduction. A balanced mix of emotional and informative content was considered appropriate and helpful. The health information provided was perceived as (2) serious and trustworthy due to citing scientific institutions and video material of men who had experienced suicidal ideation. (3) The intervention's applicability for men experiencing acute crisis was critiqued, but it was regarded as very useful for comprehensive information. (4) Further communication channels and addressing other male subgroups or gender identities were presented as possible extensions of the program.

Conclusions: Effective suicide prevention research should address both the groups at risk and their support network. Digital communication interventions can provide low-threshold access. Videos with personalized examples are important to give men someone to identify with, which validates their emotional responses and supports their self-esteem, while videos with experts provide relevant and credible information.