Background: This study evaluated the practicability of the suicide rate reduction target set by the current national suicide prevention policy in Korea, the fifth Master Plan for Suicide Prevention (2023–2027). This policy aims to lower the suicide rate from 26/100,000 in 2021 to 18.2/100,000 by 2027. Methods: We utilized monthly suicide statistics data from 2011 onwards. Using Bayesian regression and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, we conducted interrupted time series analyses to estimate the effect of the previous policy, the National Action Plan for Suicide Prevention (2018–2022), on suicide rates. We assumed this as the additional suicide reduction expected from the current policy. We generated point predictions and simulations for suicide rates from 2023 to 2027 using Bayesian regression and ARIMA models. Results: The interrupted time series analyses did not reveal a significant reduction in suicides attributable to the previous policy. Point predictions from the two models indicated that the suicide rate would remain approximately 24/100,000 in 2027. Almost all of the simulations of the 2027 suicide rate did not meet the policy target of 18.2/100,000. Conclusion The findings suggest that the Korean government’s suicide rate reduction target for 2027 is likely unattainable based on current trends and the limited effectiveness of previous policies. The objectives of suicide prevention policies should be evidence-based, attainable, and accountable.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: This study evaluated the practicability of the suicide rate reduction target set by the current national suicide prevention policy in Korea, the fifth Master Plan for Suicide Prevention (2023–2027). This policy aims to lower the suicide rate from 26/100,000 in 2021 to 18.2/100,000 by 2027. Methods: We utilized monthly suicide statistics data from 2011 onwards. Using Bayesian regression and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, we conducted interrupted time series analyses to estimate the effect of the previous policy, the National Action Plan for Suicide Prevention (2018–2022), on suicide rates. We assumed this as the additional suicide reduction expected from the current policy. We generated point predictions and simulations for suicide rates from 2023 to 2027 using Bayesian regression and ARIMA models. Results: The interrupted time series analyses did not reveal a significant reduction in suicides attributable to the previous policy. Point predictions from the two models indicated that the suicide rate would remain approximately 24/100,000 in 2027. Almost all of the simulations of the 2027 suicide rate did not meet the policy target of 18.2/100,000. Conclusion The findings suggest that the Korean government’s suicide rate reduction target for 2027 is likely unattainable based on current trends and the limited effectiveness of previous policies. The objectives of suicide prevention policies should be evidence-based, attainable, and accountable.

Background: This study evaluated the practicability of the suicide rate reduction target set by the current national suicide prevention policy in Korea, the fifth Master Plan for Suicide Prevention (2023–2027). This policy aims to lower the suicide rate from 26/100,000 in 2021 to 18.2/100,000 by 2027. Methods: We utilized monthly suicide statistics data from 2011 onwards. Using Bayesian regression and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, we conducted interrupted time series analyses to estimate the effect of the previous policy, the National Action Plan for Suicide Prevention (2018–2022), on suicide rates. We assumed this as the additional suicide reduction expected from the current policy. We generated point predictions and simulations for suicide rates from 2023 to 2027 using Bayesian regression and ARIMA models. Results: The interrupted time series analyses did not reveal a significant reduction in suicides attributable to the previous policy. Point predictions from the two models indicated that the suicide rate would remain approximately 24/100,000 in 2027. Almost all of the simulations of the 2027 suicide rate did not meet the policy target of 18.2/100,000. Conclusion The findings suggest that the Korean government’s suicide rate reduction target for 2027 is likely unattainable based on current trends and the limited effectiveness of previous policies. The objectives of suicide prevention policies should be evidence-based, attainable, and accountable.