The effectiveness of surveillance technology for the prevention of suicides in public spaces: a systematic review

preprint OA: gold CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background The use of surveillance technologies has been recommended for supporting suicide prevention efforts in public spaces. We sought to identify and synthesise the current evidence on the impact of surveillance technologies deployed in such environments on suicide and related outcomes. Methods We conducted systematic searches between 1990 up to August 2025 on the following databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Computer Source, Ovid, SPP, Web of Science, PTSDpubs, CENTRAL, ACM DL, and IEEE Explore. Our searches also extended to grey literature from relevant websites. Studies were included if they assessed the deployment of surveillance technology at a public location on suicide-related outcomes (including suicides, suicide attempts, rescue interventions, and trespass events). Study results were synthesised using narrative and tables. Results The searches identified 2,647 items, with 15 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Just one study provided clear evidence of a reduction in suicides at a site (a bridge) after installation of a “smart” surveillance system, but its use of tension-wire sensors also restricted ease of physical access. The presence of CCTV cameras was associated with lower rates of suicide at local rail stations in one study, but this was not a significant factor in two other studies of metro stations. Two studies observed an increase in interventions following the installation of smart surveillance technologies (SSTs) on bridges, but with no change in suicides rates. Three studies indicated that SSTs with audible deterrents may reduce trespass to dangerous sites, but their relevance to suicide prevention is unclear. Conclusions The current evidence base to support the use of surveillance technologies for preventing suicides is limited. There is a clear need for further evaluations of surveillance-based interventions, including their implementation, associated measures and impacts to inform development of effective suicide prevention initiatives. Key messages What is already known on this topic It is thought that surveillance technologies may aid suicide prevention efforts at public locations by increasing opportunity for human intervention. However, it is unclear whether they are effective at preventing suicides. What this study adds ur systematic review found 15 studies that examined the effectiveness of installing surveillance technologies at preventing suicides or trespass at public locations. verall, the evidence of surveillance technologies helping to prevent suicide was limited. some locations the installation of surveillance technologies was associated with an increase in numbers of interventions or police call outs, but not a decrease in deaths. use of audible deterrents may be effective for preventing trespass, however, to date there remains no evidence that they will help to prevent suicides. How this study might affect research, practice or policy The findings highlight critical gaps in the current evidence, particularly in regard to the use of “smart” or “intelligent” surveillance technologies. Further research is also needed to understand the impact of processes surrounding surveillance technologies on their effectiveness (e.g., rescue response times).
Full text 4,897 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background The use of surveillance technologies has been recommended for supporting suicide prevention efforts in public spaces. We sought to identify and synthesise the current evidence on the impact of surveillance technologies deployed in such environments on suicide and related outcomes.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches between 1990 up to August 2025 on the following databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Computer Source, Ovid, SPP, Web of Science, PTSDpubs, CENTRAL, ACM DL, and IEEE Explore. Our searches also extended to grey literature from relevant websites. Studies were included if they assessed the deployment of surveillance technology at a public location on suicide-related outcomes (including suicides, suicide attempts, rescue interventions, and trespass events). Study results were synthesised using narrative and tables.

Results

The searches identified 2,647 items, with 15 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Just one study provided clear evidence of a reduction in suicides at a site (a bridge) after installation of a “smart” surveillance system, but its use of tension-wire sensors also restricted ease of physical access. The presence of CCTV cameras was associated with lower rates of suicide at local rail stations in one study, but this was not a significant factor in two other studies of metro stations. Two studies observed an increase in interventions following the installation of smart surveillance technologies (SSTs) on bridges, but with no change in suicides rates. Three studies indicated that SSTs with audible deterrents may reduce trespass to dangerous sites, but their relevance to suicide prevention is unclear.

Conclusions

The current evidence base to support the use of surveillance technologies for preventing suicides is limited. There is a clear need for further evaluations of surveillance-based interventions, including their implementation, associated measures and impacts to inform development of effective suicide prevention initiatives. What is already known on this topic It is thought that surveillance technologies may aid suicide prevention efforts at public locations by increasing opportunity for human intervention. However, it is unclear whether they are effective at preventing suicides. What this study adds ur systematic review found 15 studies that examined the effectiveness of installing surveillance technologies at preventing suicides or trespass at public locations. verall, the evidence of surveillance technologies helping to prevent suicide was limited. some locations the installation of surveillance technologies was associated with an increase in numbers of interventions or police call outs, but not a decrease in deaths. use of audible deterrents may be effective for preventing trespass, however, to date there remains no evidence that they will help to prevent suicides. How this study might affect research, practice or policy The findings highlight critical gaps in the current evidence, particularly in regard to the use of “smart” or “intelligent” surveillance technologies. Further research is also needed to understand the impact of processes surrounding surveillance technologies on their effectiveness (e.g., rescue response times). Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024495308 Funding Statement This project is funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme (NIHR151521). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0