The State of Suicide Prevention Training Research

Abstract: Objectives: This scoping review maps peer-reviewed evaluations of suicide prevention trainings by mapping study (e.g., design, geographic location) and training characteristics (e.g., content, duration, modality, pedagogical methods, populations), and outcomes assessed using Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model (Level 1: reaction; Level 2: learning; Level 3: behavior change; Level 4: results). Methods: Systematic searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL (2014–2024) identified peer-reviewed studies published in English or French that quantitatively examined suicide prevention training outcomes. Reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Study and training characteristics were charted using a structured guide. Outcomes were categorized using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. We followed the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and adhered to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Results: Across 11,312 screened records, 326 studies met inclusion criteria, with most conducted in high-income countries (91%) and relying on nonrandomized designs (79%). Trainings were primarily delivered in-person (61%), brief (≤4 h; 53%), targeted clinicians (58%), and focused on supporting clinical populations (37%). Outcomes most frequently assessed Level 2 variables (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, skills; 88%), whereas far fewer studies measured level 3 (29%) or level 4 outcomes (9%), such as increased use of skills in real-world practice or reduced suicide-related distress. Conclusion: Suicide prevention trainings are widely implemented, and although many studies have attempted to evaluate their outcomes, this review identifies major gaps in geographic representation, study design, and outcome measurement. Future research should prioritize higher-level outcomes, with longer-term follow-up and evaluations conducted across diverse contexts to strengthen the evidence base and inform implementation.