Tools that capture, measure, or quantify the outcomes of support are commonplace in Australian community mental health programs. Outcome measure tools can track an individual's progress, build the evidence base of a program's effectiveness, or provide government funders with data that demonstrates responsible investment. Despite their ubiquity in the mental health sector, and the benefits they can offer in building the programs of tomorrow, the use of outcome measures in suicide postvention remains largely unexplored.
The selection and implementation of outcome measures in suicide postvention requires thought and consideration. Suicide bereavement can be devastating and profoundly painful; it is vital that the risk of re-traumatising individuals through the use of inappropriate outcome measurement tools is minimised. It is therefore crucial to understand the appropriateness of common outcome measure tools from the perspectives of people who may encounter them.
Our study utilised the ‘Delphi’ method to evaluate the appropriateness of outcome measure tools for individuals bereaved by suicide. A Delphi study design includes rounds of surveys that contain statements that people vote on and is a useful way to find consensus among different groups who might have varying viewpoints. Three groups participated in our Delphi study: those with a lived experience of suicide bereavement, postvention staff, and postvention researchers. The Delphi surveys contained common outcome measure tools, and participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of each tool for use with people bereaved by suicide.
While the outcome measures were largely considered appropriate, differences in opinions did emerge among the groups. Perhaps surprisingly, people with a lived experience were the most likely to rate the outcome measure tool as appropriate compared with both postvention staff and postvention researchers. The presentation will explore these divergences in further detail, shedding light on the complexity of developing universally applicable postvention tools.
The findings highlight the importance of asking (and not assuming) the lived experience perspective. Audience members will be encouraged to reflect on their own assumptions about outcome measures and consider their importance in advancing the postvention support of tomorrow.