[teg4n_]

Is it just me or is it obvious that anyone who successfully goes through like _any_ intervention would show better results than someone who can’t? That just seems like an indicator of something about the individual or their circumstances instead of the effectiveness of the intervention. Do you compare your interventions with more typical interventions like calls to the Trevor project or something?

Also I think combining self harm with suicide resources might actually have a negative effect. If someone is searching something like hiding self harm marks from cutting and gets resources on suicide, it could trigger suicidal ideation when it wasn’t actually the issue they were seeking help with.

[robertrmorris]

Great questions, thank you. Looking only at completers creates selection bias, for the reasons you articulate. In published studies, we compare interventions to control conditions (ideally an “active” control, or something that has some purported therapeutic benefit). We love the Trevor project and work hard to get candidates on our platform to that resource. We have done some comparisons with other life lines and the issue is some have incredibly long wait times and drop-offs. Ideally, we can offer both. For the suicide prevention lifeline, we’re a resource that’s listed that people can access while they wait.

It is very true that self-injury is not the same as suicidal ideation, though they can certainly overlap. A common thought is that asking about suicide or presenting resources could be harmful or ‘trigger’ more ideation. The evidence to date suggests, on the contrary, that asking about suicide can actually reduce risks. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24998511/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...