Little is known about how complex, multilevel, and multicomponent suicide prevention interventions work in real life settings. Understanding the methods used to systematically adopt, deliver, and sustain these interventions could ensure that they have the best chance of unfolding their full effect. This systematic review aimed to examine the application and extent of utilisation of implementation science in understanding and evaluating complex suicide prevention interventions. The review adhered to updated PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021247950). PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, SCOPUS and CENTRAL were searched. All English-language records (1990-2022) with suicide and/or self-harm as the primary aims or targets of intervention were eligible. A forward citation search and a reference search further bolstered the search strategy. Interventions were considered complex if they consisted of three or more components and were implemented across two or more levels of socio-ecology or levels of prevention. One hundred thirty-nine records describing 19 complex interventions were identified. In 13 interventions, use of implementation science approaches, primarily process evaluations, was explicitly stated. However, extent of utilisation of implementation science approaches was found to be inconsistent and incomprehensive. The inclusion criteria, along with a narrow definition of complex interventions may have limited our findings. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions is crucial for unlocking key questions about theory-practice knowledge translation. Inconsistent reporting and inadequate understanding of implementation processes can lead to loss of critical, experiential knowledge related to what works to prevent suicide in real world settings.

It has been argued that effective action towards addressing a complex concern such as suicide requires a combination of evidence-based strategies. While these complex public health approaches have recently gained importance, little is known about their characteristics and what contributes to their complexity. The use of interchangeable terms such as multilevel, multicomponent, community based, and inconsistent definitions of these approaches creates confusion around what it is and what it is not. In practice, this disorder is reflected in a substantial variation in the design, implementation, and evaluation of complex approaches in suicide research. While it is impossible to resolve all existing inconsistencies in terminology, this review explores a range of terms and definitions to connote complex interventions. It aims to unpack multiple meanings of these terms and their diverse usage in suicide literature. The potential implications of this fluidity and plausible pathways to make sense of this complexity for suicide research are also discussed. With a shared understanding of what constitutes a complex intervention, we can expect to see an improved representation of the real-world complexities in our efforts to address suicide. This common language can also contribute toward quality implementation and dissemination and thereby advance our understanding of complex interventions.

Introduction: Prevention of suicidal behaviour is complex, and a host of effective interventions have now been recognised in addressing this concern. However, adoption, delivery, and sustainment of these interventions within real‐life settings is challenging; and the translation process, often overlooked. Examining the impact of context is necessary to explain how implementation outcomes are achieved and aid generalisability of findings. This study aims to explore factors influencing implementation outcomes (contextual determinants) across the implementation lifecycle of complex suicide prevention interventions.Methods: A qualitative design was adopted. Semi structured interviews were conducted with 16 stakeholders (leaders, project managers/implementors, lived experience advocates) involved in implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions across the world. A purposive and snowball sampling approach was used to identify participants with requisite experiences. An understanding of determinants was deduced from participant narratives. These were mapped using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework.Results: Across different phases of implementation, outer context barriers were predominantly reported and pertained to service environmental factors, pre‐existing dynamics, and engaging leadership. Several inner context barriers including individual characteristics, staffing and resources, and challenges in maintaining fidelity were reported during the implementation phase. Bridging factors (such as interrelationships and partnerships) were identified as important facilitators throughout different phases of implementation and levels of context. Implementation strategies related to stakeholder relationship building were prioritised across different phases of implementation.Conclusion: This study helps expand the notion of an evidence‐base for complex suicide prevention interventions. Determinants salient across different levels of the social‐ecology and phases of implementation address questions related to what works and under what circumstances.

Complex interventions combining multiple evidence-based strategies have gained substantial traction in suicide prevention across the world. However, implementing these interventions in real-life settings is fraught with several challenges, significant resource demands, and evidence on the merits of implementing complex interventions remains a topic of debate. This study explores the real-world experiences of implementing complex interventions, including challenges, lessons learned, and the way forward. Sixteen participants (nine leaders, five implementors, and two lived experience advocates) from varied professional backgrounds and experiences were purposively recruited from six high-income countries and one low- and middle-income country. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their experiences of implementing complex suicide prevention interventions in their specific country contexts. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify, organize, and offer real-world insights into challenges, lessons learned, and what is needed as the way forward. Important themes related to challenges and lessons learned emerged: (a) stakeholder characteristics, engagement, and dynamics; (b) resources such as funding priorities and capacity; (c) contextual factors including larger sociocultural beliefs, policies, and legislation surrounding suicide and its prevention; (d) nature of lived experience engagement; (e) design and approach to interventions; (f) delivery of interventions; and (g) the scope of evaluation. The study yielded important insights into practice recommendations related to the implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions on the ground. Important pathways for designing interventions, collaboration, and stakeholder engagement for future implementation efforts were discussed. These real-life experiences and lessons learned from international experts are critical in understanding and bridging the know-do gap. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objectives: Suicide research and prevention are complex. Many practical, methodological and ethical challenges must be overcome to implement effective suicide prevention interventions. Implementation science can offer insights into what works, why and in what context. Yet, there are limited real-world examples of the application of implementation science in suicide prevention. This study aimed to identify approaches to employ principles of implementation science to tackle important challenges in suicide prevention. Methods: A questionnaire about promoting implementation science for suicide prevention was developed through thematic analysis of stakeholder narratives. Statements were categorised into six domains: research priorities, practical considerations, approach to intervention design and delivery, lived experience engagement, dissemination and the way forward. The questionnaire (n=52 statements—round 1; n=44 statements—round 2; n=9 statements—round 3) was administered electronically to a panel (n=62—round 1, n=48—round 2; n=45—round 3) of international experts (suicide researchers, leaders, project team members, lived experience advocates). Statements were rated on a Likert scale based on an understanding of importance and priority of each item. Statements endorsed by at least 85% of the panel would be included in the final guidelines. Results: Eighty-two of the 90 statements were endorsed. Recommendations included broadening research inquiries to understand overall programme impact; accounting for resources in the translation of evidence into practice; embedding implementation science in intervention delivery and design; meaningfully engaging lived experience; considering channels for dissemination of implementation-related findings and focusing on next steps needed to routinely harness the strengths of implementation science in suicide prevention research, practice and training. Conclusion: An interdisciplinary panel of suicide prevention experts reached a consensus on optimal strategies for using implementation science to enhance the effectiveness of policies and programmes aimed at reducing suicide.