The Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Suicide Prevention National Outcomes Evaluation is supported through contract no. HHSS283201200007I/HHSS28342002T (reference no. 283-12-0702) awarded to ICF International by the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NATIONAL OUTCOMES EVALUATION : FINDINGS FROM THE SMSS AND MIS, AND PREPARING FOR THE STUDENT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FORM (SBHF) May 2, 2016 Megan Brooks, MA
ON TODAY’S AGENDA • What we have learned from the National Outcomes Evaluation and prior campus evaluation efforts • SMSS background and results • Management Information System (MIS) results • Moving forward with the Student Behavioral Health Form (SBHF) • Youth Exploratory Services Interview (YESI) 2
SHORT MESSAGE SERVICE SURVEY ANALYSES CONDUCTED BY HOPE SOMMERFELDT, MA
WHAT IS THE SHORT MESSAGE SERVICE SURVEY (SMSS)? • Text message (SMS) survey to students at GLS funded campuses • Gather data about exposure to on-campus suicide prevention interventions, suicidal ideation, and past suicide attempts 4
BENEFITS OF SMS FOR DATA COLLECTION • 98% of Americans aged 18 – 29 have a cell phone 1 • 2014 Harris Poll shows that 83% of college students regularly use a Smart Phone. 2 • 97% of persons ages 18 – 29 send or receive text messages 3 • Students can respond any time and place • Can start at one time and finish later • Private (if they secure their phone) 1. Pew Research Center’s Internet Survey Project., January 9 – 12, 2014. From: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/02/PIP_25th-anniversary-of-the- Web_0227141.pdf 2. Harris Poll Pearson Student Mobile Device Survey, February 13 – March 12, 2014. From http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-HE-Student- Mobile-Device-Survey-PUBLIC-Report-051614.pdf 3. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Spring Tracking Survey, April 17 – May 19, 2013. From http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/19/additional-demographic-analysis/ 5
SMSS RECRUITMENT METHODS Sample of currently enrolled students were stopped, by university or evaluation staff in- Intercept person to text in to the survey (University Staff or Evaluation Team) Currently enrolled students were invited to School Listserv provide a phone number through a school sponsored listserv posting (University Staff) An email was sent to students from currently Student Email enrolled on campus asking them to provide a addresses phone number (Evaluation Team) Random sample of phone numbers for currently Student Cell enrolled students received a text message Phone Number invitation to participate (Evaluation Team) 6
SMSS DATA COLLECTION • During the past 12 months, did you attend class at [CAMPUS]? • During the past 12 months did you see, read, or hear of any suicide prevention effort at [CAMPUS]? • During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide? • During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide? 7
SMSS DATA COLLECTION – INCREASING RESPONSE RATE • Previous data collection through a ‘cold’ email had very low response • $5 gift code incentive to complete the survey • Incentive delivered right to their phones via text at the end of the survey • A reminder after 60 minutes of idle time once the participant begins responding to questions 8
CRISIS PROTOCOL ICF monitors ICF alerts local crisis center Responses that Follow up indicate risk ICF communicates Student requests with center about Trained HELP via text the student of professionals follow concern up with the student • Warning text prior to suicidal ideation questions • Option to skip suicidal ideation questions is clear • The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline number given • 24 hour monitoring for crisis situations 9
EXPOSURE, IDEATION, AND ATTEMPTS (WAVE 1) 10
SMSS DATA COLLECTION (WAVE 2) • Data collection began in February 2016 and is ongoing (goal of 14 Cohort 7 Campuses that completed wave 1) • To date, responses from 454 students at 6 GLS funded campuses • Between 18 and 112 responses per campus (mean = 81, median =87.5) 11
SNEAK PEAK AT FUTURE ANALYSIS WAVE 1 AND WAVE 2 * 90% 81.7% 80% 70% 65.7% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12.8% 10.2% 10% 3.3% 2.4% 0% Exposure Ideation Attempt Wave 1 Wave 2 * Includes only grantees that have completed both waves. Wave 1 N = 413; Wave 2 N = 454 12
POSSIBLE FUTURE SMSS ANALYSIS • Tests of significance between Wave 1 and Wave 2 • Inclusions of prevention strategies to see if different strategies had an impact on exposure, ideation, and attempt 13
USE OF STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ON GLS CAMPUSES ANALYSES CONDUCTED BY YE XU, MA, MS
RESEARCH QUESTIONS • Is there an increase in mental health service use after receipt of GLS award? • Is the rate of mental health service use associated with the number of students, faculty, and/or staff trained on suicide prevention within the campus community? • Is the rate of mental health service use associated with the strategies implemented by campus grantees? 15
DATA SOURCES AND MEASURES • Management Information System (MIS) – Number of students using mental health services, per year • Training Activity Summary Page (TASP) – Number of individuals trained by role (student, staff, faculty), per year • Prevention Strategies Inventory (PSI) – Implementation of prevention strategies, in particular Screenings and Public Awareness Campaigns • Secondary Data Sources – Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for student enrollment, number of faculty and staff – Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (campus size and setting categories) 16
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL Students, Faculty, Staff Trained Mental health service use Implementation of Screening or Public Awareness Campaign (PAC) 17
SAMPLE • Panel data on 84 GLS campuses from cohorts 5 - 8 – Cohort 5 campuses initially funded in year 2011 – Cohort 6 campuses initially funded in year 2012 – Cohort 7 campuses initially funded in year 2013 – Cohort 8 campuses initially funded in year 2014 • On average we have data for 3 years preceding the initial funding year and 2 years following that initial funding year 18
METHOD • Outcome of interest – Student mental health service use, reported annually by GLS grantees using MIS abstraction • Predictors – Year of GLS award – Pre and post GLS award – Types of gatekeepers trained on suicide prevention, and supplemented by data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) – Implementation of Screening and Public Awareness Campaign on campus 19
DESCRIPTIVE N Mean SD Total number of students registered on campus 466 17,264 12,425 (MIS) Average number of faculty on campus (IPEDS) 466 2,115 2,458 Average number of staff on campus (IPEDS) 466 2,385 3,041 Average number of students trained (TASP/TES) 459 106 323 Average number of faculty trained (TASP/TES) 452 7 22 Average number of staff trained (TASP/TES) 457 22 54 Average number of students receiving mental health 466 1,081 1,107 service on campus (MIS) 20
DESCRIPTIVE Pre-GLS award Post-GLS award Average Training and Four Three Two years One year Mental health rate on years years prior to prior to Funding Funding Funding campus prior to prior to funding funding year year1 year2 funding funding year year year year Average percent of students trained on 0 0 0 0 0.7% 4.3% 3.4% campus Average percent of faculty trained on 0 0 0 0 2.2% 6.3% 1.8% campus Average percent of staff 0 0 0 0 4.4% 7.6% 5.2% trained on campus Average percent of students receiving 5.9% 6.0% 6.2% 6.4% 6.9% 7.5% 7.9% mental health services on campus 21
DESCRIPTIVE Pre-GLS award Post-GLS award -- 2.5% (N=202) Average percent of students trained on campus -- 3.4% (N=202) Average percent of faculty trained on campus Average percent of staff trained -- 5.6% (N=202) on campus Average percent of students 6.1% 7.3% receiving mental health services (N=264) (n=202) on campus 22
DESCRIPTIVE Number of campuses % of Campuses % of Campuses with PAC with Screening Cohort 5 (n=19) 73.7% 78.9% Cohort 6 (n=32) 65.6% 62.5% Cohort 7 (n=19) 68.4% 57.9% Cohort 8 (n=14) 35.7% 71.4% Total (n=84) 63.1% 66.7% 23
DESCRIPTIVE Campuses Campuses with without PAC PAC Average percent of students receiving mental health services on campus 5.5% 7.3% 24
DESCRIPTIVE Campuses Campuses with without Screening Screening Average percent of students receiving mental health services on campus 6.5% 6.7% 25
DESCRIPTIVE Number of students Small campuses Medium campuses Large campuses Pre- Post- Post- Post-GLS Pre-GLS Pre-GLS GLS GLS GLS award award award award award award (n=24) (n=25) (n=85) (n=73) (n=155) (n=104) Average percent of students receiving mental health 8.9% 12.2% 5.8% 6.6% 5.9% 6.7% services on campus 26
DESCRIPTIVE Number of trainees Small Medium Large campuses campuses campuses (n=25) (n=73) (n=104) Average percent of students trained on 5.9% 3.2% 1.3% campus Average percent of faculty 16.9% 2.2% 1.4% trained on campus Average percent of staff 14.2% 5.5% 3.8% trained on campus 27
Recommend
More recommend
