Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Health Serv.

Sec. Implementation Science

Volume 5 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1473682

Illuminating the "black box" of complex suicide prevention interventions: Towards a theory of implementation using the Normalisation Process Theory

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
  • 2Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: Although there has been some investigation into what works in suicide prevention; exploration into the mechanisms by which implementation strategies impact outcomes or how and why strategies work remains largely under-studied. This study aims to explore and examine the role of context and mechanisms involved in the implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions. In-depth qualitative interviews were used to explore relevant stakeholder experiences of implementing complex suicide prevention interventions. Stakeholders (nine intervention leaders, five implementors and two lived experience advocates) from six interventions were purposively recruited for their experiences involved in implementing a complex interventions in real-world settings. The Normalisation Process Theory translational coding manual was used to map data related to the primary and secondary constructs defined in the theory and its extensions. Three domains pertaining to implementation context, mechanisms, and outcomes (CMO) were explored. Participants expressed their agency by: using contextual influences to modify the design and plan for delivery; making adaptations to the form and function of interventions and characteristics of the implementation environment to suit intervention needs; and, leveraging the intervention environment to integrate the intervention into existing systems and practices. Activities and strategies served multiple mechanisms involved in: understanding what the work entails; who does the work; developing the capacity to implement the work; and, understanding the work. An interdependent and interacting relationship between mechanisms emerged. Outcomes related to: change in existing practices; the ways in which people are organised; changes in existing norms; and, incorporation of the intervention into daily practice were observed. This study is notable in its exploration of mechanisms underlying implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions. Data from this study can help inform the development, refinement and use of specific implementation strategies and understand the applicability of strategies across varied contexts. It demonstrates the use of an implementation framework to inform practice and potentially contributes to an understanding of what works, why, for whom and in what context. There is a need for a paradigm shift towards the use of more theory based and informed approaches to understand causal links between implementation strategies, context, mechanisms, and outcomes.

Keywords: mechanisms, Theory-informed, implementation science, suicide prevention, complex intervention

Received: 31 Jul 2024; Accepted: 15 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Krishnamoorthy, Armstrong, Mathieu, Ross and Kõlves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Sadhvi Krishnamoorthy, Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.