Background: Every month, around 3800 people complete an anonymous self-test for suicidal thoughts on the website of the Dutch suicide prevention helpline. Although 70% score high on the severity of suicidal thoughts, <10% navigate to the web page about contacting the helpline. Objective: This study aimed to test the effectiveness of a brief barrier reduction intervention (BRI) in motivating people with severe suicidal thoughts to contact the suicide prevention helpline, specifically in high-risk groups such as men and middle-aged people. Methods: We conducted a fully automated, web-based, randomized controlled trial. Respondents with severe suicidal thoughts and little motivation to contact the helpline were randomly allocated either to a brief BRI, in which they received a short, tailored message based on their self-reported barrier to the helpline (n=610), or a general advisory text (care as usual as the control group: n=612). Effectiveness was evaluated using both behavioral and attitudinal measurements. The primary outcome measure was the use of a direct link to contact the helpline after completing the intervention or control condition. Secondary outcomes were the self-reported likelihood of contacting the helpline and satisfaction with the received self-test. Results: In total, 2124 website visitors completed the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale and the demographic questions in the entry screening questionnaire. Among them, 1222 were randomized into the intervention or control group. Eventually, 772 respondents completed the randomized controlled trial (intervention group: n=369; control group: n=403). The most selected barrier in both groups was “I don’t think that my problems are serious enough.” At the end of the trial, 33.1% (n=122) of the respondents in the intervention group used the direct link to the helpline. This was not significantly different from the respondents in the control group (144/403, 35.7%; odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.64‐1.18, P=.38). However, the respondents who received the BRI did score higher on their self-reported likelihood of contacting the helpline at a later point in time (B=0.22, 95% CI 0.12‐0.32, P≤.001) and on satisfaction with the self-test (B=0.27, 95% CI 0.01‐0.53, P=.04). For male and middle-aged respondents specifically, the results were comparable to that of the whole group. Conclusions: This trial was the first time the helpline was able to connect with high-risk website visitors who were hesitant to contact the helpline. Although the BRI could not ensure that those respondents immediately used the direct link to the helpline at the end of the trial, it is encouraging that respondents indicated that they were more likely to contact the helpline at a later point in time. In addition, this low-cost intervention provided greater insight into the perceived barriers to service. Follow-up research should be focused on identifying the added value of other components (eg, video or photo material) in the BRI and increasing its effectiveness, especially for men and middle-aged people.

Background: Globally, suicide is among the leading causes of death, with men being more at risk to die from suicide than women. Research suggests that people with suicidal ideation often struggle to find adequate help. Every month, around 4000 people fill in the anonymous self-test for suicidal thoughts on the website of the Dutch suicide prevention helpline. This self-test includes the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale (SIDAS), which educates users about the severity of their suicidal thoughts. The vast majority (70%) of people who complete the self-test score higher than the cutoff point (≥21) for severe suicidal thoughts. Unfortunately, despite this, less than 10% of test-takers navigate to the web page about contacting the helpline. Objective: This protocol presents the design of a web-based randomized controlled trial that aims to reduce barriers to contacting the suicide prevention helpline. The aim of this study is 2-fold: (1) to measure the effectiveness of a brief barrier reduction intervention (BRI) provided in the self-test motivating people with severe suicidal thoughts to contact the Dutch suicide prevention helpline and (2) to specifically evaluate the effectiveness of the BRI in increasing service use by high-risk groups for suicide such as men and middle-aged people. Methods: People visiting the self-test for suicidal thoughts on the website of the suicide prevention helpline will be asked to participate in a study to improve the self-test. Individuals with severe suicidal thoughts and little motivation to contact the helpline will be randomly allocated either to a brief BRI, in which they will receive a short tailored message based on their self-reported barrier to the helpline (n=388) or care as usual (general advisory text, n=388). The primary outcome measure is the use of a direct link to contact the helpline after receiving the intervention or control condition. Secondary outcomes are the self-reported likelihood of contacting the helpline (on a 5-point scale) and satisfaction with the self-test. In the BRI, participants receive tailored information to address underlying concerns and misconceptions of barriers to the helpline. A pilot study was conducted among current test-takers to identify these specific barriers. Results: The pilot study (N=1083) revealed multiple barriers to contacting the helpline. The most prominent were the belief that a conversation with a counselor would not be effective, fear of the conversation itself, and emotional concerns about talking about suicidal thoughts. Conclusions: Our study will provide insight into the effectiveness of a brief BRI designed to increase the use of a suicide prevention helpline provided in a self-test on suicidal thoughts. If successful, this intervention has the potential to be a low-cost, easily scalable, and feasible method to increase service use for helplines across the world.

Background: The working environment of a suicide prevention helpline requires high emotional and cognitive awareness from chat counselors. A shared opinion among counselors is that as a chat conversation becomes more difficult, it takes more effort and a longer amount of time to compose a response, which, in turn, can lead to writer's block. Objective: This study evaluates and then designs supportive technology to determine if a support system that provides inspiration can help counselors resolve writer's block when they encounter difficult situations in chats with help-seekers. Methods: A content-based recommender system with sentence embedding was used to search a chat corpus for similar chat situations. The system showed a counselor the most similar parts of former chat conversations so that the counselor would be able to use approaches previously taken by their colleagues as inspiration. In a within-subject experiment, counselors' chat replies when confronted with a difficult situation were analyzed to determine if experts could see a noticeable difference in chat replies that were obtained in 3 conditions: (1) with the help of the support system, (2) with written advice from a senior counselor, or (3) when receiving no help. In addition, the system's utility and usability were measured, and the validity of the algorithm was examined. Results: A total of 24 counselors used a prototype of the support system; the results showed that, by reading chat replies, experts were able to significantly predict if counselors had received help from the support system or from a senior counselor (P=.004). Counselors scored the information they received from a senior counselor (M=1.46, SD 1.91) as significantly more helpful than the information received from the support system or when no help was given at all (M=-0.21, SD 2.26). Finally, compared with randomly selected former chat conversations, counselors rated the ones identified by the content-based recommendation system as significantly more similar to their current chats (β=.30, P<.001). Conclusions: Support given to counselors influenced how they responded in difficult conversations. However, the higher utility scores given for the advice from senior counselors seem to indicate that specific actionable instructions are preferred. We expect that these findings will be beneficial for developing a system that can use similar chat situations to generate advice in a descriptive style, hence helping counselors through writer's block.