Do the means matter? Results from a survey of state suicide prevention coalitions

BACKGROUND: According to a recent review by an international panel of experts, reducing access to lethal means of suicide is one of only two intervention types that currently has evidence of effectiveness in preventing suicide. PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which U.S. statewide suicide prevention coalitions are implementing means reduction interventions. METHODS: We interviewed leaders of 44 statewide suicide prevention coalitions and conducted content analyses of their published suicide prevention plans. RESULTS: Preliminary results indicate most (85%) state prevention plans called for reducing access to lethal means of suicide, yet few (29%) were engaged in any means reduction work. Most respondents believed that a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide for adolescents (93%) and adults (91%). In response to the statement, “Almost all people who kill themselves with a gun were very determined to die,” 46% agreed and 45% disagreed (9% unsure). Forty percent believed that if a gun were not available to people who committed suicide with a gun, nearly all would have killed themselves using other means. 73% believed that most people who make a medically serious suicide attempt will eventually kill themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Most state suicide prevention plans formally call for reducing access to lethal means of suicide, yet few have implemented interventions in this area. Leaders of state coalitions are nearly unified in believing that a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide; however, they appear to disagree on why this is so.