Background: Previous studies revealed that there was a significant increase in suicide deaths among those aged 65 and over in 2003. The peak coincided with the majority of SARS cases being reported in April 2003. Aims: In this paper we examine the mechanism of how the SARS outbreak resulted in a higher completed suicide rate especially among older adults in Hong Kong. Methods: We used Qualitative data analysis to uncover the association between the occurrence of SARS and older adult suicide. Furthermore, we used a qualitative study based on the Coroner Court reports to provide empirical evidence about the relationship between SARS and the excessive number of suicide deaths among the elderly. Results: SARS-related older adult suicide victims were more likely to be afraid of contracting the disease and had fears of disconnection. The suicide motives among SARS-related suicide deaths were more closely associated with stress over fears of being a burden to their families during the negative impact of the epidemic. Social disengagement, mental stress, and anxiety at the time of the SARS epidemic among a certain group of older adults resulted in an exceptionally high rate of suicide deaths. Conclusions: We recommend that the mental and psychological well-being of the community, in particular older adults, be taken into careful account when developing epidemic control measures to combat the future outbreak of diseases in the community. In addition, it is important to alert family members to vulnerable individuals who are at potential risk because of their illnesses or anxieties.

Quit attempters often have episodes of smoking relapse before they eventually quit. Interactive text messaging through mobile phones has been shown to increase abstinence. This service can be potentially applied on the platform of a social networking service to help quitters maintain abstinence. Our aim was to determine if the group discussion and reminders via the WhatsApp or Facebook social group were effective to prevent smoking relapse in quitters who had stopped smoking recently. This was a single-blinded, parallel, 3-arm pilot cluster randomized controlled trial allocating recent quitters, who had completed an 8-week treatment and reported abstinence for at least 7 days, to WhatsApp (n=42), Facebook (n=40), and a control group (n=54). The 2 intervention groups participated in a 2-month online group discussion with either WhatsApp or Facebook moderated by a trained smoking cessation counselor and received a self-help booklet on smoking cessation. The control group only received the booklet. The primary outcome was the 2- and 6-month relapse rates, defined as the proportion of participants who smoked at least 5 cigarettes in 3 consecutive days. Fewer participants in the WhatsApp group (17%, 7/42) reported relapse than the control group (42.6%, 23/54) at 2-month (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.71) and 6-month (40.5%, 17/42 vs 61.1%, 33/54; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99) follow-ups. The Facebook group (30.0%, 12/40) had an insignificantly lower relapse rate than the control group (42.6%, 23/54) at 2-month (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.37) and 6-month (52.5%, 13/40 vs 61.1%, 33/54; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31-1.61) follow-ups. The WhatsApp social groups had more moderators' posts (median 60, IQR 25 vs median 32, IQR 7; P=.05) and participants' posts (median 35, IQR 50 vs median 6, IQR 9; P=.07) than their Facebook counterparts, but the difference was insignificant. The intervention via the WhatsApp social group was effective in reducing relapse probably because of enhanced discussion and social support. Inactive discussion in the Facebook social group might have attributed to the lower effectiveness. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02007369; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02007369 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6c3RbltQG).

Background: ‘Suicide hotspots’ include tall structures (for example, bridges and cliffs), railway tracks, and isolated locations (for example, rural car parks) which offer direct means for suicide or seclusion that prevents intervention. Methods: We searched Medline for studies that could inform the following question: ‘What interventions are available to reduce suicides at hotspots, and are they effective?’ Results: There are four main approaches: (a) restricting access to means (through installation of physical barriers); (b) encouraging help-seeking (by placement of signs and telephones); (c) increasing the likelihood of intervention by a third party (through surveillance and staff training); and (d) encouraging responsible media reporting of suicide (through guidelines for journalists). There is relatively strong evidence that reducing access to means can avert suicides at hotspots without substitution effects. The evidence is weaker for the other approaches, although they show promise. Conclusions: More well-designed intervention studies are needed to strengthen this evidence base.

Background Certain sites have gained notoriety as ‘hotspots’ for suicide by jumping. Structural interventions (e.g. barriers and safety nets) have been installed at some of these sites. Individual studies examining the effectiveness of these interventions have been underpowered. Method We conducted a meta-analysis, pooling data from nine studies. Results Following the interventions, there was an 86% reduction in jumping suicides per year at the sites in question (95% CI 79% to 91%). There was a 44% increase in jumping suicides per year at nearby sites (95% CI 15% to 81%), but the net gain was a 28% reduction in all jumping suicides per year in the study cities (95% CI 13% to 40%). Conclusions Structural interventions at ‘hotspots’ avert suicide at these sites. Some increases in suicide are evident at neighbouring sites, but there is an overall gain in terms of a reduction in all suicides by jumping.