IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0169625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Different Suicide Prevention Measures at Bridges and Buildings: Lessons We Have Learned from a National Survey in Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Hemmer
  • Philipp Meier
  • Thomas Reisch

Abstract

The goal of the study was to compare the effectiveness of different suicide prevention measures implemented on bridges and other high structures in Switzerland. A national survey identified all jumping hotspots that have been secured in Switzerland; of the 15 that could be included in this study, 11 were secured by vertical barriers and 4 were secured by low-hanging horizontal safety nets. The study made an overall and individual pre-post analysis by using Mantel-Haenszel Tests, regression methods and calculating rate ratios. Barriers and safety nets were both effective, with mean suicide reduction of 68.7% (barriers) and 77.1% (safety nets), respectively. Measures that do not secure the whole hotspot and still allow jumps of 15 meters or more were less effective. Further, the analyses revealed that barriers of at least 2.3 m in height and safety-nets fixed significantly below pedestrian level deterred suicidal jumps. Secured bridgeheads and inbound angle barriers seemed to enhance the effectiveness of the measure. Findings can help to plan and improve the effectiveness of future suicide prevention measures on high structures.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Hemmer & Philipp Meier & Thomas Reisch, 2017. "Comparing Different Suicide Prevention Measures at Bridges and Buildings: Lessons We Have Learned from a National Survey in Switzerland," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0169625
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169625
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169625&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0169625?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0169625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.