Table 3.

Follow-up services of suicide attempt in RCTs* studies

Authrs	Findings
Fleischmann et al., 2008	1867 Suicide attempters in five culturally different sites (Campinas, Brazil; Chennai, India; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Karaj, Islamic Republic of Iran; and Yuncheng, China) received either treatment as usual, or treatment as usual and brief intervention and contact (BIC), which included patient education and follow-up. Findings showed Significantly fewer deaths from suicide in the BIC than in the treatment-as-usual group (P < 0.001).
Vaiva G, et al. (2006)	605 patients discharged after committing suicide were studied. Phone follow-ups with the patients were performed one and three months after discharge to evaluate the treatment success and acceptance in intervention groups. The control groups received the common treatment. Three groups had no significant difference in aforementioned factors. Participants who received follow-ups at the first month had less suicide reattempt (12% against 22% of the control group).
Carter GL, et al. (2005)	772 patients were discharged after committing suicide and targeting the effect of intervention using postal cards, were randomly divided into two groups of intervention and control. In their study, the intervention groups receiving postal cards against the group only receiving standard treatment were monitored for 12 months. Results showed no significant difference between the suicides reattempts of the intervention and control.
Cedereke M, et al. (2002)	216 patients were randomly divided into two groups. The intervention group received phone follow-up and the control groups did not. Interventions caused support and motivation for maintaining treatment. Follow-ups were received the first and the 12th month. Results showed the positive effect of phone follow-up among these patients.