Co‐Designing and Evaluating a Suicide Prevention Workshop for General Practice and Community Staff in Rural South Australia

ABSTRACT

Objective

To co‐design, deliver and evaluate a suicide prevention workshop aimed at improving the knowledge, skills and confidence of general practice and community staff in rural South Australia.

Setting

A 2.5‐h in‐person workshop was delivered across three rural communities on the Eyre Peninsula, Australia.

Participants

Sixty‐seven individuals attended the workshop. Of these, 61 completed a pre‐ and post‐workshop survey (91% response rate). Participants who completed the survey included practice staff (n = 27), mental health or psychosocial support workers (n = 18), community volunteers (n = 6), suicide prevention network representative (n = 4) and other (n = 6).

Method

The design of the workshop was guided by Participatory Action Research principles and underpinned by the Double Diamond model. The workshop was co‐designed by a multidisciplinary advisory group, including two individuals with lived experience. The objectives of the workshop were to help attendees to: (1) recognise verbal and non‐verbal warning signs of suicidal ideation, (2) respond effectively to provide immediate support and (3) connect individuals with appropriate referral services. A mixed‐methods pre–post survey assessed changes in participants' confidence, knowledge and skills aligned with these objectives, along with their perceptions of the workshop. Pre‐ and post‐workshop responses were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank Test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.001. Open‐ended survey responses were analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis.

Results

Statistically significant improvements were observed across all evaluation items from pre‐ to post‐workshop, with the greatest gains in recognising subtle behavioural or emotional changes (1.25 points mean difference) and feeling skilled in knowing what services to recommend (1.28 points mean difference). Participants also reported high satisfaction (4.6 ± 0.73) and found the content highly relevant to their roles (4.5 ± 0.78). Content on referral pathways, local services and strategies for responding to suicidal ideation was identified as the most impactful. Including deeper coverage of culturally safe approaches for First Nations people, greater discussion around the differences among genders in the experiences of suicidality and more detailed exploration of specific mental health conditions and self‐care strategies for staff were suggested as enhancements.

Conclusion

The co‐designed workshop effectively enhanced suicide prevention capabilities among frontline and community staff. Its success highlights the value of locally tailored, collaborative training that integrates lived experience and responds to community‐specific needs. This model offers a scalable framework for workforce development in suicide prevention.

Summary

What is already known on this subject?

• Suicide rates are significantly higher in rural and remote regions of Australia, yet frontline staff in these areas often lack access to suicide prevention training.

• Existing evidence shows that workforce education in suicide prevention improves knowledge, confidence and skills, but training is rarely tailored to rural contexts or co‐designed with community input.

• There is limited research on the impact of short‐duration, community‐informed suicide prevention workshops delivered in rural general practice and community settings.

What does this study add?

• This study demonstrates that a co‐designed, 2.5‐h workshop significantly improves front line staff's confidence, knowledge and skills in recognising and responding to suicidal ideation.

• It highlights the value of integrating lived experience and local service knowledge into training to enhance relevance and impact.

• The findings offer a scalable model for suicide prevention workforce development that aligns with national policy priorities and addresses rural training gaps.

1. Introduction

Suicide and mental health distress are pressing public health concerns. In 2023, more than 3000 Australians died by suicide, equating to a national rate of 11.8 deaths per 100 000, which is higher than the global average of 9.1 [1]. The burden, however, is not evenly distributed. In metropolitan areas, the rate is approximately 10.0, while in very remote regions it more than doubles, reaching 21.0 per 100 000 [2]. A similar pattern is evident in the Eyre Peninsula, a predominantly rural and remote region of South Australia, where the age‐standardised suicide rate is 16.6 per 100 000 [3]. These disparities highlight the urgent need for early and accessible intervention in rural settings, where both the risks and the barriers to care are heightened.

People in frontline roles, particularly those in general practice and community‐based services, are often the first point of contact for individuals experiencing suicidal ideation. Yet suicide prevention is rarely a core component of pre‐service education for some of these roles [4, 5]. Consequently, many staff report low confidence in assessing and responding to suicide risk [6]. This skills gap is compounded by limited access to professional development, insufficient on‐the‐job training and high turnover rates, particularly within community mental health services [7]. Collectively, these factors reduce the workforce's capacity to respond to suicide distress confidently and effectively.

Extensive research demonstrates that workforce education in suicide prevention is highly effective in enhancing knowledge and skills [8] and increasing staff confidence when addressing suicide‐related concerns [8, 9]. Importantly, the adequacy of this training has been shown to predict these outcomes more strongly than years of professional experience working with individuals experiencing suicidal ideation [10]. In addition, organisations that embed structured training for staff have been shown to achieve reductions in suicide attempts and deaths among the populations they serve [11]. Therefore, strengthening the capacity of people in frontline roles to recognise and respond to suicide distress should be a high priority, particularly in rural and remote areas where suicide rates are highest and access to training is often limited.

As such, a team consisting of community members, people with lived experience, staff in front line roles and researchers co‐designed and evaluated an in‐person suicide prevention workshop to improve the knowledge, skills and confidence of people working in general practice and community settings across rural South Australia. The purpose of this workshop was to strengthen the capacity of frontline workers and community members to recognise and respond to suicide distress. The aim of this paper is to describe the co‐design process, outline the delivery of the workshop and present participants' perceptions of its impact and usefulness, along with recommendations for improving the workshop's content. These findings will inform future workforce initiatives in rural and remote suicide prevention.

2. Co‐Designing the Workshop

2.1. Overview

The development and delivery of the workshop was underpinned by the Double Diamond model [12] (Figure 1). In addition, the design of the workshop was guided by Participatory Action Research (PAR) principles [13]. This approach was used to tailor the workshop to the specific needs of the communities and people it was intended to support. The project team engaged in both formal and informal co‐design processes with individuals from various backgrounds and roles. Formally, an Advisory Group was established to provide structured input throughout the design of the workshop. Informally, the team collaborated with local organisations and general practices in the regions where the workshops were to be delivered, enabling ongoing feedback and contextual insights.

FIGURE 1.

Use of the Double Diamond model and Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach to underpin the workshop's development and delivery.

2.2. Recruitment and Remuneration of Advisory Group Members

The project team established an Advisory Group to inform the design, content and delivery of the workshop. This group consisted of two individuals with lived experience, one psychologist, one general practitioner, two mental health support workers and three project staff. Three of these members also resided in one of the communities where the workshop was intended to be held, ensuring local relevance and insight.

Individuals with lived experience were recruited through an online advertisement which was distributed through local mental health support groups in South Australia. Other Advisory Group members were invited directly by the project team, in which they were either identified from existing contact lists or referred by staff already participating in the Advisory Group. All Advisory Group members, except for the project staff, were given the option to receive compensation for their contribution. Those who chose to be compensated were reimbursed $40 per hour.

2.3. Co‐Design Process and Outcomes

Nine months prior to delivering the workshop, the project team began engaging with general practices in the regions where the workshop was intended to be delivered to raise awareness and explore staff preferences for participation. The project team contacted local general practice clinics via email to advise that a suicide prevention workshop was being developed for general practice staff in their area, and to seek input on who within the practice might be interested in attending and how the workshop could be delivered. Of approximately 15 clinics contacted, three responded. Each clinic indicated a preference for an in‐person format, scheduled after work hours to facilitate staff attendance, and designed to include all staff working in general practice, particularly receptionists and nurses, who expressed a strong interest.

Following this, the Advisory Group met for four one‐hour online sessions between January and May 2025 to co‐design the workshop. The objectives and outcomes of these meetings are summarised in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Advisory Group meeting objectives and outcomes.

Meeting	Objective(s)	Outcome(s)
30 January	To develop a clear understanding of: Key staff roles to target for upskilling The problem and gaps in current practice Prioritised areas for knowledge and skill development	Determined that the workshop should be designed to cater to a range of roles within the community (e.g., volunteers and community members), not just general practice staff Recognised the need to clarify available services and referral processes within each area Identified the importance of reviewing referral pathways for both suicidal ideation and broader mental health distress Identified that offering incentives such as CPD points and momentary value, would help recruit staff, particularly General Practitioners
25 February	To determine: The structure and content of the workshop	Determined that the workshop should run for no more than 3 h given its after work hours Established a three‐part structure, referred to as components: Recognise, Respond, Connect Decided to mention self‐care for staff without making it a core component due to time constraints Advised against sharing formal assessment tools for suicidal ideation and mental health distress Emphasised the importance of including Lived Experience
25 March	To determine: The objectives of the workshop The learning activities to be used for each component of the workshop The resources and materials to be provided	Reached consensus on the objectives of the workshop Chose specific learning activities for each component of the workshop: gallery walk (Activity 1), case study analysis (Activity 2) and guest presentations from local services Proposed providing participants with self‐care resources, a directory of available services, a selection of locally sourced materials and a tote bag
06 May	To review: Learning activities 1 and 2 Structure of the workshop and its overall content	Recommended ensuring scenarios in Activities 1 and 2 reflect diverse presentations of suicidal ideation Suggested to limit statistical content to a single slide and instead emphasise more practical information, such as risk factors Advised printing information‐dense slides as handouts Provided feedback to enhance slide visuals and use of inclusive language

Prior to delivering the workshops, the three clinics previously engaged were re‐contacted by the project team to review the draft workshop plan and provide feedback. All three confirmed their support for the proposed design and offered no further comments.

2.4. Workshop Promotion

Flyers were circulated in local networks in the three communities where the workshop was intended to be delivered to generate interest among general practice staff. Simultaneously, the project team conducted targeted outreach to general practices in these regions via email and telephone, providing information about the workshop and encouraging participation. This approach led to an unexpected request from a nurse at a clinic in a rural community not originally included. In response, a workshop was arranged in this community, replacing one in another location that was cancelled after receiving a low number of registrations in the first week of promotion.

Outreach efforts also extended to staff working at suicide prevention networks and community‐based mental health and psychosocial support services, along with community volunteers in the three target communities. This involved directly emailing and calling local services to promote workshop attendance and invite representatives to showcase their services during the workshops. Through this process, the project team established a partnership with the Chairperson of one suicide prevention network, who played a pivotal role in increasing registrations in two of the communities.

3. Delivering the Workshop

3.1. Attendees and Locations

In May 2025, the co‐designed workshop was delivered over three consecutive nights in three rural communities, attracting 85 registrations, 67 of which attended (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

Locations and details of the workshops held.

3.2. Objectives

The workshop's objectives were to enable participants to:

• Recognise verbal and non‐verbal warning signs of suicidal ideation,

• Respond effectively and provide immediate support; and

• Connect individuals with appropriate referral services.

3.3. Content, Structure and Resources

Each workshop ran from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM and included a 30‐min dinner break to facilitate networking, during which a meal was provided. The workshop was designed to be at an introductory level for people within the community. It was structured to commence with introductions and an overview, followed by three key components: (1) recognising signs of suicidal ideation, (2) responding effectively and providing immediate support and (3) connecting individuals with appropriate referral services. The primary delivery format was a didactic PowerPoint presentation, complemented by two interactive group activities and short presentations from invited speakers who spoke about their service. These sessions also included open group discussions and an opportunity to ask the speakers questions to encourage engagement and knowledge sharing. The workshop agenda is provided in Supporting Information S1. Attendees also received a tote bag containing hard copy resources, including: the PowerPoint slides, a self‐care training module, A4 printouts of key slides (e.g., risk factors, crisis lines, local services), a PDF of Our Words Matter: Guidelines for Language Use [14], locally sourced materials and a certificate of attendance to claim Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points if desired/applicable.

3.4. Presenters

The workshops were facilitated by two members of the project team (MR and TSJ), both trained in Mental Health First Aid. One presenter also brought lived experience, which was thoughtfully shared and integrated throughout the workshop. Additionally, a community representative, the Chairperson of a local suicide prevention network, co‐presented at two workshops, further enriching the sessions by sharing her own lived experience. These individuals shared their lived experience from a bereavement perspective. Each workshop also featured 2–5 guest speakers from either a local suicide prevention network or a community‐based mental health or psychosocial support service, who provided information about the services they offer.

3.5. Safety and Distress

Given the sensitive nature of the workshop content, specific measures were implemented to support the psychological safety of attendees. A designated support person was present in the room for the duration of the workshop. Prior to commencement, participants were informed of this individual's role and advised that they could take a break at any time if needed. Participants were asked to signal to the support person if they stepped out of the room: a thumbs‐up indicated they were simply taking a break (e.g., stretching their legs or using the bathroom), while a thumbs‐down indicated they required support and wished to speak with someone.

4. Evaluating the Workshop

4.1. Participants

To support attendance and to strengthen evaluation numbers, a $50 reimbursement was offered to all attendees who completed both the pre‐ and post‐workshop surveys. This incentive was designed both to acknowledge attendance outside regular working hours and to enhance survey response rates, ensuring more comprehensive feedback. Ethics approval was granted by Flinders University Ethics Committee (approval ID: 8471), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Sixty‐one attendees completed the evaluation (91% response rate). Participants' demographics are presented in Table 2. Of the 61 participants, the majority were female (75%), with ages ranging from < 25 to ≥ 65 years. Participants represented diverse professional roles, ranging from general practice staff to community volunteers (refer to Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Demographics of delegates who completed the workshop evaluation.

Demographic variable	Number of (%)
Location
Whyalla	26 (43%)
Port Lincoln	24 (39%)
Elliston	11 (18%)
Age group
< 25	6 (10%)
25–34	11 (19%)
35–44	19 (32%)
45–54	10 (17%)
55–64	8 (14%)
≥ 65	3 (5%)
Prefer not to say	4 (7%)
Professional role
General Practitioner	5 (8%)
Practice Nurse	13 (21%)
Practice Receptionist/Administration	8 (13%)
Practice manager	1 (2%)
Community Volunteer	6 (10%)
Suicide Prevention Network Representative	4 (7%)
Mental Health or Psychosocial Support Worker	18 (29%)
Counsellor (qualified or student)	3 (5%)
Allied Health/Emergency Health Services Staff	2 (3%)
No Response	1 (2%)
Gender identity
Female	46 (75%)
Male	12 (20%)
No response	3 (5%)

4.2. Methods

A mixed‐methods pre–post survey was used to evaluate whether the workshop influenced participants' knowledge, confidence and skills. The pre‐workshop survey was developed by the study authors and included nine 5‐point Likert scale items aligned with the three core components the workshop aimed to develop. For example, for each component of the workshop, three questions were included: one assessing perceived confidence, one assessing knowledge and one assessing skills‐based question, each derived from the key content covered (see Table 3). This survey was completed by attendees immediately before the workshop commenced. The post‐workshop survey repeated these nine items and included three additional Likert scale questions assessing satisfaction, relevancy and real‐life application (see Table 4), along with two open‐ended questions to explore participants' perceptions of the workshop overall. This survey was completed by attendees directly after the workshop, prior to leaving.

TABLE 3.

Pre‐ and post‐workshop survey responses regarding confidence, knowledge and skill.

Likert scale statement	Pre score a	Post score a	MD	p‐value	Effect size
Recognising verbal and non‐verbal warning signs of suicidal ideation
I feel confident identifying verbal and non‐verbal warning signs and risk factors that may indicate someone is experiencing suicidal ideation.	3.30 ± 0.85	4.33 ± 0.70	1.03	< 0.001	0.73
I understand the differences between verbal cues and non‐verbal indicators of distress.	3.38 ± 0.76	4.47 ± 0.54	1.08	< 0.001	0.75
I am able to recognise subtle behavioural or emotional changes that may suggest someone is at risk of suicide.	2.50 ± 0.83	3.75 ± 0.79	1.25	< 0.001	0.81
Responding effectively to provide immediate support
I feel confident initiating a conversation with someone I believe may be experiencing suicidal thoughts.	3.18 ± 1.03	4.23 ± 0.65	1.05	< 0.001	0.73
I understand what types of language, tone, and questions are appropriate when responding to someone who may be at risk of suicide.	3.32 ± 0.70	4.38 ± 0.56	1.07	< 0.001	0.81
I am skilled in using open‐ended, non‐judgmental questions when speaking with someone experiencing distress.	2.57 ± 0.79	3.70 ± 0.79	1.13	< 0.001	0.75
Connecting individuals with appropriate referral services
I feel confident referring someone in distress to appropriate mental health or crisis services.	3.58 ± 0.87	4.12 ± 1.11	0.54	< 0.001	0.45
I am aware of the local and national mental health referral services and supports and when to use them.	3.43 ± 0.89	4.38 ± 0.55	0.95	< 0.001	0.74
I feel skilled in knowing what services to recommend to someone who is experiencing mild to moderate distress.	2.60 ± 0.81	3.88 ± 0.78	1.28	< 0.001	0.80

Abbreviation: MD, mean difference.

^a Highest possible score = 5; lowest possible score = 1.

TABLE 4.

Post‐workshop survey responses regarding satisfaction and usefulness.

Likert scale statement	Post score a
I was satisfied with the workshop overall.	4.6 ± 0.73
The content of the workshop was relevant to my role.	4.5 ± 0.78
I feel better equipped to apply what I learned in real‐life situations.	4.5 ± 0.66

^a Highest possible score = 5; lowest possible score = 1.

All quantitative survey data were entered into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2021) and analysed descriptively. All results were reported as mean and standard deviation or mean difference. Pre‐ and post‐workshop responses were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank Test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.001. Further, effect sizes (r) were calculated for Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests by dividing the standardised test statistic (Z) by the square root of the number of paired observations. Effect sizes were interpreted using common thresholds for small (0.1), medium (0.3) and large (0.5) effects.

Open‐ended survey responses were analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis [15]. Two overarching categories were established prior to the analysis: (1) what participants found useful and (2) what participants thought could be improved. Within each category, one author (MR) repeatedly read all responses to gain familiarity with the data. Responses were then inductively grouped into subcategories based on emerging patterns and similarities.

4.3. Results

Statistically significant improvements in confidence, knowledge and skill were observed across all nine evaluation items from pre‐ to post‐workshop, with large effects for eight items and a medium effect for one item (Table 3). Mean gains across these nine questions ranged from 0.54 to 1.28 points, with the greatest improvement in recognising behavioural or emotional changes (mean difference 1.25) and in knowing what services to recommend (mean difference 1.28).

Post‐workshop survey responses regarding participants' perceptions around satisfaction, relevancy and real‐life application are shown in Table 4. Participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the workshop (4.6 ± 0.73 out of 5). They also found the content of the workshop relevant to their role (4.5 ± 0.78) and they felt better equipped to apply what they had learnt in real life scenarios (4.5 ± 0.66).

4.3.1. What Participants Found Useful

4.3.1.1. Increased Awareness of Referral Pathways and Local Services

The most frequently cited benefit of the workshop was the section on ‘connecting individuals to appropriate referral services’. Participants valued gaining awareness of local mental health services, particularly those available in their own communities. The inclusion of a take‐home list of local services was widely appreciated. Further, guest speakers from these services were described as ‘very informative’, further enhancing the relevance and impact of this section.

4.3.1.2. Practical Strategies for Responding to Distress

The section on ‘responding effectively and providing immediate support’ was also highly valued. Participants highlighted the usefulness of learning how to support someone experiencing suicidal ideation. The ALGEE framework [16] was repeatedly mentioned as a helpful tool, and attendees appreciated learning ‘appropriate things to say’ and techniques for de‐escalating distressing situations.

4.3.1.3. Recognition of Warning Signs and Risk Factors

Although mentioned less frequently, some participants found the section on ‘recognising the signs of suicidal ideation’ and the introductory content helpful. Attendees noted the value of learning about warning signs and risk factors, especially how distress may present differently across demographic groups. A few participants also appreciated the introductory slides and statistics for grounding the discussion in evidence.

4.3.1.4. Positive Feedback on Workshop Structure and Resources

Many participants praised the overall structure and delivery of the workshop, describing it as comprehensive and cohesive. The well‐presented content, practical activities and supporting resources, such as handouts and printed slides, were specifically mentioned. The inclusion of lived experience speakers was described as ‘relatable’ and ‘brave’, adding depth and authenticity to the sessions. Further, one participant referred to the workshop as a ‘well‐rounded information package’ that offered meaningful information and valuable revision.

4.3.2. What Participants Thought Could Be Improved

4.3.2.1. High Satisfaction With Minimal Suggestions

A large proportion of participants (n = 14, 44%) expressed high satisfaction with the workshop and did not suggest any improvements. Comments included praise for the workshop being ‘very well run’, ‘clear’ and ‘helpful’, with one attendee describing it as ‘one of the best workshops I've attended in the last 7 years.’

4.3.2.2. Recommendations for Expanding and Tailoring Content

Several participants expressed interest in extending the workshop duration and incorporating more practical examples, while others suggested expanding the content to better meet the diverse needs of clients living in the communities where the workshop was held. Recommendations included:

• Incorporating culturally appropriate approaches for Aboriginal and Torres Strait people;

• Clarifying distinctions between chronic and acute mental health presentations:

• Exploring specific conditions such as borderline personality disorder:

• Addressing gendered experiences, including the pressures faced by women and their impact on help‐seeking behaviours; and

• Including more self‐care strategies for staff.

5. Discussion

Our co‐designed 2.5‐h introductory level workshop significantly enhanced attendees' knowledge, confidence and skills in recognising and responding to mental health distress and suicidal ideation. Participants also reported high satisfaction and found the content highly relevant to their roles, despite representing a wide range of professional and volunteer backgrounds. Information that was practicable and actionable, such as content on referral pathways, local services and strategies for responding to suicidal ideation, was identified as the most impactful. These positive findings may, in part, be attributed to the co‐design process, which engaged stakeholders from diverse sectors and rural community settings, including those with lived experience, in shaping both the content and delivery of the workshop. Additionally, the limited availability of face‐to‐face training in rural areas likely contributed to the workshop's value, with participants appreciating that the project team travelled to each location and included local guest speakers.

Our dual co‐design approach, which combined formal advisory group meetings with informal, iterative stakeholder engagement, ensured the workshop was tailored to the communities and attendees it aimed to serve. This process also enabled the meaningful integration of lived experience, which is increasingly recognised in both research and policy as a cornerstone of effective suicide prevention training [17]. The involvement of individuals with lived experience, as advisory group members, project team members and as workshop co‐facilitators, enriched the workshop by fostering empathy and relatability; qualities that several participants identified as particularly impactful, echoing findings reported by a previous study [18]. These findings highlight the value of collaborative, locally informed approaches in strengthening workforce capacity and responsiveness in this area.

Despite these positive outcomes, several challenges emerged during the co‐design process and evaluation feedback highlighted areas for improvement. Establishing partnerships with general practices prior to workshop delivery proved difficult, with only three clinics initially responding to engagement efforts. This may, in part, reflect limited interest in suicide prevention training among some practices, but it also likely highlights the structural barriers to engagement. For example, the project team was based in metropolitan Adelaide, approximately 4 h from the closest rural community, which limited opportunities for face‐to‐face relationship building. Greater community involvement from the outset may have enabled closer alignment with community needs. Indeed, while the workshop was well received overall, participants suggested enhancements to the content, including deeper coverage of culturally safe approaches for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanded people, greater discussion around the differences among genders in the experiences of suicidality, and more detailed exploration of specific mental health conditions. This feedback reflects the need for suicide prevention training to be contextually responsive to the unique challenges faced by rural and remote communities, with a particular emphasis on cultural appropriateness, whether that be in either the content and/or delivery method used. This has successfully been achieved in previous suicide prevention training in rural and remote areas in which the Aboriginal ‘Social and Emotional well‐being’ health model was used [19].

Feedback also highlighted the need for a stronger focus on self‐care, reflecting the recognised emotional toll of suicide prevention work. This emphasis is particularly important, as many frontline staff such as those in healthcare, emergency community service roles (i.e., a high proportion of the workshop attendees), frequently encounter individuals experiencing mental health distress or suicidal ideation, while also being at increased risk of compassion fatigue themselves [20]. Compassion fatigue is well‐documented in rural health settings, where limited resources, isolation and high emotional demands can exacerbate burnout and reduce workforce sustainability [21]. Another important consideration is the gender distribution among those who completed the evaluation, with 75% being female. While this reflects current trends within the mental health and suicide prevention workforce [22], it also emphasises the importance of increasing engagement of men and other groups disproportionately affected by suicide, as outlined in the National Suicide Prevention Strategy [23]. To address this imbalance, future workshops could incorporate targeted outreach strategies aimed at engaging male participants, alongside a stronger emphasis on self‐care to support all attendees.

Recognising and responding to suicidal ideation is a shared responsibility that spans professional disciplines and community roles. This study demonstrates that a short‐duration, introductory level workshop can be effectively tailored to diverse audiences within rural communities, including general practitioners, volunteers and community service providers. Future workshops could adopt a tiered structure, beginning with a core module that covers risk identification, immediate response and local referral pathways. Building on this foundation, optional modules could be offered to cover culturally responsive approaches for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, gendered experiences of suicidality, specific mental health conditions and self‐care strategies if facilitators wish to maintain the core workshop at 2.5 h in duration. Considerations should also be made to consolidate and sustain newly acquired knowledge, skills and confidence. This could be achieved through refresher courses being offered within 3–6 months, with online delivery enhancing accessibility and facilitating broader implementation [24]. Deepening the role of lived‐experience contributors is also essential, through expanded co‐facilitation opportunities and input, in alignment with the National Lived Experience Workforce Guidelines [25]. That said, it is important to consider the safety needs of people with lived experience and the impact the process may have on everyone involved in the journey, as outlined in a recent Scoping Review exploring lived experience participation in suicide prevention activities in Australia [26]. Lastly, strengthening local partnerships is essential for the design and delivery of suicide prevention efforts and can be supported through strategies such as grants to rural partners to co‐host workshops. This would not only enable contextual tailoring but also reflect the shared‐stewardship principles and the call for sustained long‐term investment in community partnerships and co‐design infrastructure outlined in national policies [23, 27].

6. Limitations

This study had several limitations which should be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, while the survey instrument was developed to align with the workshop's objectives, it was not subjected to formal psychometric testing prior to administration. While this approach is consistent with many evaluations of training or program interventions, the absence of established reliability and validity limits the extent to which the findings can be generalised or compared with other studies. Secondly, outcomes were measured immediately following the workshop, prior to participants leaving. Although this approach captures participants' immediate perceptions of learning and satisfaction, it may have overestimated the impact of the workshop due to heightened motivation. Thirdly, participants were offered a $50 reimbursement contingent on completion of both the pre‐ and post‐workshop surveys. While this incentive was intended to acknowledge attendance outside regular working hours and to maximise response rates, it may have introduced response bias. For example, participants may have felt encouraged to provide positive feedback, potentially inflating outcomes. Lastly, the evaluation focused solely on self‐reported outcomes and did not include longer‐term follow‐up or objective behavioural measures. As a result, it is unclear whether reported improvements translated into changes in practice, behaviour or responses to suicide distress in real‐world settings. Future research would benefit from incorporating longitudinal follow‐up and behavioural or service‐level outcomes to better understand the workshop's impact on practice and its potential contribution to suicide prevention.

7. Conclusion

The 2.5‐h co‐designed workshop delivered in three rural South Australian communities successfully improved participants' knowledge, skills and confidence in recognising and responding to suicidal ideation. Beyond its immediate outcomes, this workshop demonstrates how co‐design can operationalise policy priorities, such as valuing lived experience and strengthening community capacity, at the local level. As national strategies increasingly prioritise suicide prevention workforce development, this project offers a scalable model for collaborative, context‐specific training that responds to both policy goals and community needs.

Author Contributions

Adrian Waye: methodology, writing – review and editing. Tania Shelby‐James: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing – review and editing. Megan Rattray: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – original draft, methodology, visualization, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, project administration, data curation. Elaine Leung: methodology, writing – review and editing.

Funding

This project received funding from Country SA PHN.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1: ajr70200‐sup‐0001‐Supinfo1.docx.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.