See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/24177623

Can Postvention Be Prevention?

Article  in  Crisis The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention · February 2009
DOI: 10.1027/0227-5910.30.1.43 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

86 1,745

1 author:

Karl Andriessen
University of Melbourne
188 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Grief of adolescents who have lost a relative or a friend through suicide or other cause of death View project

THE LIFEWAYS PROJECT: Leading research into suicide prevention View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karl Andriessen on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 K. Andriessen:©Can Postvention
2009
Crisis
Hogrefe
2009; Be Prevention?
& Vol.
Huber
30(1):43–47
Publishers

Short Report

Can Postvention Be Prevention?

Karl Andriessen
Suicide Prevention Project of the Flemish Mental Health Centers, Gent, Belgium

Abstract. Background. There has been recent interest in postvention activities which involve provision of support to family members
and others affected by a suicide death. Aims. To review the current status of postvention support, including definitions used and the
objectives and effectiveness of support activities for people bereaved by suicide. Methods. Selected controlled studies of support activities
and programs are reviewed with narrative comment. Results. Not applicable. Conclusions. Effective postvention support can be viewed
as contributing toward suicide prevention among those people who are bereaved by suicide. Further development of support programs
is needed.

Keywords: bereavement, grief, postvention, prevention, suicide.

would integrate three aspects: It refers to the behavior of

Questions About Postvention
What is Postvention?
At the first conference of the American Association of Sui-
cidology in 1968 Shneidman coined the word postvention
as: “the helpful activities which occur . . . after a stressful
or dangerous situation” (Shneidman, 1969, p. 19). Further
he wrote, postvention are the “activities which occur after
a suicidal event,” both after a suicide attempt, and a suicide
(ibid, p. 21). More specific, “postvention aims primarily at
mollifying the psychological sequelae of a suicidal death
in the survivor-victim” (ibid, p. 22).
In this and other early literature the concept of postven-
tion was very broad, referring to both suicide and attempted
suicide. Currently the word postvention is predominantly
used in relation to suicide only, but there is no consensus
on a definition of postvention. The introduction of a con-
cept of “postattempt care” for the attempter and his envi-
ronment, to clearly distinguish from postvention, could be
a way out of the confusion. My pragmatic definition of
postvention is: “Postvention are those activities developed
by, with, or for suicide survivors, in order to facilitate re-
covery after suicide, and to prevent adverse outcomes in-
cluding suicidal behavior” (Andriessen, 2006).
If one knows what postvention is, we then may ask: who
needs postvention? Usually, the target people are referred to
as survivors, or suicide survivors (Andriessen, 2005). A
shortcoming of this term is that it also could refer to people
who have survived a suicide attempt, thus, leading to concep-
tual confusions (Clark, 2001a; McIntosh, 2003). To clearly
distinguish from the latter, the survivor movement has adopt-
ed several other names, such as the bereaved after suicide
(Australia), survivors after suicide (USA; Farberow, 2001),
and suicide bereavement support. A definition of “survivor”
someone else (and not to one’s own suicide attempt), to the
subsequent death and absence of that person, and to the sub-
sequent impact on the remaining persons (N. Farberow, per-
sonal communication, 12 February. 2007).
Who is a Survivor After Suicide?
A survivor is usually regarded as a person who has lost a
significant other (or a loved one) by suicide, and whose life
is changed because of the loss. There is, however, no con-
sensus definition. To lose a significant other doesn’t neces-
sarily means that this person was a loved one. For example,
what about a train driver who unwillingly becomes an in-
strument in the suicide of a person who is standing on the
rails? In this case, the suicide and the survivor probably
don’t even know each other. Nevertheless, the latter could
be traumatized by the suicide and would then be called a
survivor.
Who decides who is a survivor? How can one identify
a survivor? Is it a mechanism of self-selection, e.g., is
someone a survivor when he/she says so? Do we need as-
sessment scales to measure the impact of the loss? Do we
involve clinical judgment? Should the three methods be
combined, and if so, how?
A recent telephone survey in the United States found
that 7% of the sample had been exposed to a suicide in the
last year, and 1% had lost an immediate family member
(Crosby & Sacks, 2002). However, the authors specifically
mentioned that being exposed to a suicide, or having lost a
family member, isn’t a sufficient condition to be a survivor.
Not only kinship, but the quality of the relationship would
be important in the experience of the loss (Chapman, 2007;
McIntosh, 2003).

© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Crisis 2009; Vol. 30(1):43–47

DOI 10.1027/0227-5910.30.1.43
44 K. Andriessen: Can Postvention Be Prevention?
How Many Survivors Are There?
Shneidman (1969, p. 22) suggested a “half-dozen,” and this
estimate of an average number of six survivors per suicide
has been repeated continuously during the past 40 years.
However, there is no objective count of the number of survi-
vors because both a consensus definition of “suicide survi-
vor” and an identification or assessment strategy are lacking.
In addition, nothing is known regarding time trends and
cultural differences. Society is changing, e.g., age distribu-
tion, the average number of family members, and work and
leisure environments change over time. Does this affect the
average number of survivors per suicide? Is the number
decreasing or increasing? Further, is the Western Anglo-
Saxon estimate of six survivors valid for other cultures?
Indeed, hardly anything is known of survivors in Eastern
European countries, South America, Asian countries, or
Africa (Andriessen, Dyregrov, Freegard, Van Daatselaar, &
Harrison, 2005). The need for basic epidemiological infor-
mation is a major challenge for the development of the
postvention field.
Where to Find Postvention?
Andriessen and Farberow (2002) estimated that approxi-
mately only 10,000 survivors annually were reached, a
sharp contrast with the estimated annual incidence of
60,000 suicides in Europe. Farberow’s 1998 survey of 31
world countries suggested several Eastern European coun-
tries (Russia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and
Yugoslavia), as well as Oriental countries (Iran, India,
South Korea, Japan, and China), had no support services.
In contrast, services were reported by Anglo-Saxon coun-
tries (USA, Canada, Australia, England, and Ireland) and
Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark).
The 2002 survey carried out for the European Directory
found information for 20 of the 31 European IASP member
countries. Survivor support was mostly organized in West-
ern European countries and was lacking in Southern and
Eastern Europe. Thus, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland
reported a moderate to low number of services, while Bel-
gium, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands,
and the UK reported a larger number of services, which in
some countries were linked with each other and/or with
community resources in national networks. Recently, the
national suicide prevention plan of Germany was launched,
including the suicide survivor network. Finland, Slovenia,
and Turkey each reported one agency, each in its capital
city. There was no current activity but initiatives were
planned or beginning in Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Rus-
sia, Italy (Scocco, Frasson, Costacurta, & Pavan, 2006),
and Brazil (D’Oliveira, 2006). Representatives and con-
tacts in Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Spain reported there was
no current activity. Of the 10 countries reported by Farbe-
row in 1998 as having no suicide survivor services, only
Crisis 2009; Vol. 30(1):43–47
two countries, Spain and Yugoslavia, continued to report
no activity in the 2002 European survey.
Saarinen, Viinamäki, Hintikka, Lehtonen, and Lönn-
qvist (1999) considered the mental health of 104 survivors
6 months after a suicide. Depression and guilt were report-
ed by half of the sample. In addition, half of the survivors
reported a need for professional help but only one in four
had sought help. In a 10-year follow-up study of the sam-
ple, the authors concluded that the survivors had experi-
enced more mental health problems than the general Finn-
ish population: 17% of the sample reported having received
psychosocial support (Saarinen, Hintikka, Viinamäki, Leh-
tonen, & Lönnqvist, 2000). Provini, Everett, and Pfeffer
(2000) studied the experiences of 227 adult next-of-kin sur-
vivors. Eighteen percent of the sample expressed bereave-
ment concerns, 26% expressed needs, and 24% reported
having received assistance from professionals, peers and
family, however the finding might be biased by the fact that
only a minority of 34 persons (15% of the sample) had
answered this question. Dyregrov (2002) studied 128 par-
ents who had lost a child (ages 11–22 years old) by suicide.
Some 26% of the survivors had attended support groups.
When asked what “ideal help” would be, 22% suggested
peer support.
Only a minority (approximately 25%) of survivors find
their way to support groups or therapy in countries where
this support is available (Dyregrov, 2002; Provini et al.,
2000; Saarinen et al., 1999). Obviously, many other for-
mats of support are needed. Examples include a national
telephone helpline for survivors in the UK (Peters, 2006);
and support by e-mail, internet chat rooms, or internet-
based psycho-educational programs (Hoffmann, 2006).
The latter might be particularly useful in remote areas or in
countries where only few support resources are in place.
Promising examples of coordinated outreach programs are
found in the USA (Campbell, Cataldie, McIntosh, & Millet,
2004), Australia (Clark & Andriessen, 2005; Fisher, 2004;
Fisher, Scheinpflug, Eames, & Combes, 2007), and Italy
(Scocco et al., 2006). The Flemish Working Group on Sui-
cide Survivors (Belgium) aired radio spots, and in a few
countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, and Belgium
(De Fauw & Andriessen, 2003) a national survivor day is
held. It appears that these new formats attract survivors
who, otherwise, are probably not reached by support
groups. Obviously, there is no such thing as “the survivor.”
Different formats may serve different survivors while their
lives evolve. This calls for further research. It is, however,
apparent that in most countries postvention services are un-
derdeveloped.
Who Needs Postvention?
Survivors feel needs in various aspects of life, e.g., practi-
cal, psychological, social, juridical, spiritual, etc. (Clark,
2001a,b; Clark & Goldney, 2000; Dyregrov, 2002; Grad,
1996, 2005; Grad, Clark, Dyregrov, & Andriessen, 2004;
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 K. Andriessen: Can Postvention Be Prevention?
Hawton & Simkin, 2003; Krysinska, 2003; Provini et al.,
2000; Saarinen et al., 1999). To know specifically who
would need postvention, one might look at morbidity.
Bridge et al. (2003) found that adolescents who had been
exposed to a suicide, had a family history of depression,
and felt accountable for the suicide, were 28 times more
likely to develop major depression 1 month after the sui-
cide, compared with nonbereaved peers. In Hong Kong,
Ho, Leung, Hung, Lee, and Tang (2000) found psychiatric
morbidity and suicide attempts in the peers of adolescent
suicides and attempted suicides, with peers of suicide at-
tempters faring worse than peers of suicides, due to the
closeness of the relationship. Cleiren and Diekstra (1995)
reported maladjustment in 18% – 34% of survivors be-
tween 1 and 4 years after the loss, and 2% of survivors had
psychiatric sequelae, mostly depression, 1 year after the
loss.
Does Postvention Work?
Jordan and McMenamy (2004) have suggested that support
groups may be helpful for survivors in general, and that
psychotherapy may be helpful for the small group of sur-
vivors who develop psychological/psychiatric problems.
Shear, Frank, Houck, and Reynolds (2005) provided sup-
port for this suggestion by showing the effectiveness of
treatment of complicated grief after violent (and nonvio-
lent) causes of death. Schut, Stroebe, Van Den Bout, and
Terheggen (2001) reported that the more severe the grief
process, the more chance that therapeutic interventions
would have positive results.
Farberow (1992) conducted a quasi-experimental study.
The study group consisted of 60 survivors who attended
eight weekly group sessions, facilitated by a clinician and
a survivor. Compared with wait-listed controls, study par-
ticipants reported higher levels of disturbance at the start
of the program. They also reported much more improve-
ment on eight of nine emotions, whereas the controls re-
ported improvement on one emotion only. The study sug-
gests that survivors with high distress can be helped by such
a program.
Constantino, Sekula, and Rubinstein (2001) compared
two group interventions for widowed suicide survivors:
one group focusing on the grief process, and one on group
social activities.. Both treatments consisted of a series of
eight weekly 1½-h sessions. At completion and 6 to 12
months later, both groups showed significant improvement
on depression, grief, distress, and social activities. The au-
thors concluded that both formats might be helpful for sur-
vivors, and that any format that brings survivors together
in a professionally led group might be beneficial.
Pfeffer, Jiang, Kakuma, Hwang, and Metsch (2002) de-
veloped a group intervention for children bereaved by the
suicide of a relative. Thirty-nine children (6–15 years) were
randomly assigned to a weekly treatment group (n = 39)
and a control group (n = 36) who received no treatment.
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
45
Compared with controls, those who received the program
showed reduced anxiety and depressive symptoms. Trau-
matic stress and social maladjustment were not improved,
and might be more persistent than anxiety and depression.
Parents of those in the treatment group received a psycho-
educational program regarding bereavement in children,
enabling them to better support the treatment program.
Given the few controlled evaluation studies, little is
known about what treatments, programs and group formats
are beneficial for what survivors regarding age, gender,
kinship, in what time after the suicide. (Farberow, 2001;
McIntosh, 2003). It is likely that different formats will be
needed to provide choice (Farberow, 2001; Jordan & Nei-
meyer, 2003).
Is Suicide Bereavement Different?
Since the seminal publication of Cain (1972) this issue has
been much debated, although there have been few studies
(e.g., McIntosh, 2003). It is possible to provide some con-
clusions:
– Most grief processes after suicide are not pathological
(Cleiren & Diekstra, 1995; Farberow, 2001).
– There are more similarities than differences between sui-
cide bereavement and other types of death (Clark &
Goldney, 2000; Cleiren & Diekstra, 1995).
– However, there might be aspects of grieving that could
be different, e.g., feelings of guilt, shame, rejection, self-
blame, and social stigma,are often quoted. In addition,
Grad (2005) specifically mentioned the experience of
being involved in the decision of suicide, as a unique
feature.
– The differences might exist diminish after 2 years (Far-
berow, 1992, 2001).
– The kinship relation, the closeness and quality of the re-
lationship, and the time since the suicide seem to be im-
portant for the grief process (Chapman, 2007; Clark &
Goldney, 2000; Grad, 1996). Kinship relation is impor-
tant regarding the meaning of the loss (Cleiren & Diek-
stra, 1995; Mitchell, Kim, Prigerson, & Mortimer-Ste-
phens, 2004). Mitchell et al. (2004) reported preliminary
findings that closeness was related to increased risk for
symptoms of complicated grief.
Conclusions
First, the postvention field needs to develop a consensus
regarding nomenclature. Basic words such as postvention
and survivor need a definition and an operationalization.
Second, basic epidemiological research on different conti-
nents is needed to better understand the magnitude of sur-
vivorship in different cultures. Third, controlled studies
with sufficient subjects should focus on the experiences
and needs of various subgroups of survivors, sensitive to
Crisis 2009; Vol. 30(1):43–47
46 K. Andriessen: Can Postvention Be Prevention?
age, gender, kinship, and closeness. Fourth, there is a need
for both qualitative and controlled studies that evaluate the
efficacy and effectiveness of survivor support, e.g., support
groups and psychotherapy. It appears beneficial to develop
(national) networks with survivor and community organi-
zations together, to connect with contacts in other coun-
tries, and to include survivor support and survivor activities
in a national suicide prevention program or policy (And-
riessen & Farberow, 2002).
Can Postvention Be Prevention?
In many ways, survivors are actively involved and contrib-
ute to a better understanding of suicide and its prevention.
Suicidology without the involvement of survivors would
be poor suicidology. Suicide prevention without survivors
would be poor prevention.
Given the fact that survivors are both a risk group for
suicide, and simultaneously are involved in suicide preven-
tion, postvention, as defined at the onset of this article, is
an integral and indispensable preventive part of a compre-
hensive suicide prevention program. Postvention is preven-
tion.
Acknowledgments
This paper was first read as an invited plenary presentation
at the 11th European Symposium on Suicide and Suicidal
Behavior, 9–12 September 2006, in Portoroz, Slovenia, for
which I gratefully thank and honor the Convenor, the late
Prof. Andrej Maruši2 and his team.
References
Andriessen, K. (2005). A reflection on “suicide survivor.” Crisis,
26, 38–39.
Andriessen, K. (2006). Can postvention be prevention? Abstract
Book, 11th European Symposium on Suicide and Suicidal Be-
havior. Psychiatria Danubina, 18 (suppl. 1), 125.
Andriessen, K., Dyregrov, K., Freegard, J., Van Daatselaar, S., &
Harrison, D. (2005, September). Suicide postvention service
delivery in different countries/cultures. Symposium at the
XXIII World Congress, International Association for Suicide
Prevention, Durban, South Africa.
Andriessen, K., & Farberow, N.L. (2002). European directory of
suicide survivor services. Le Baradé: IASP.
Bridge, J., Day, N., Day, R., Richardson, G., Birhamer, B., &
Brent, D. (2003). Major depressive disorder in adolescents ex-
posed to a friend’s suicide. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1294–1300.
Cain, A. (Ed.). (1972). Survivors of suicide. Springfield, IL: Char-
les Thomas.
Campbell, F., Cataldie, L., McIntosh, J., & Millet, K. (2004). An
active postvention program. Crisis, 25, 30–32.
Crisis 2009; Vol. 30(1):43–47
Chapman, J. (2007). The impact of relationship type on the grief
journey of those bereaved through suicide and its implications
for service providers. Living Hope, Inaugural Australian Post-
vention Conference, May 2007, Book of Abstracts (23). Syd-
ney: University of NSW.
Clark, S. (2001a). Bereavement after suicide. How far have we
come and where do we go from here? Crisis, 22, 102–108.
Clark, S. (2001b). Mapping grief: An active approach to grief
resolution. Death Studies, 25, 531–548.
Clark, S., & Andriessen, K. (2005, September). Video: Reaching
out, messages of hope. Workshop at the XXIII World Con-
gress, International Association for Suicide Prevention, Dur-
ban, South Africa.
Clark, S., & Goldney, R. (2000). The impact of suicide on rela-
tives and friends. In K. Hawton & K. van Heeringen (Eds.),
The international handbook of suicide and attempted suicide
(pp. 467–484). Chichester: Wiley.
Cleiren, M., & Diekstra, R. (1995). After the loss: Bereavement
after suicide and other types of death. In B. Mishara (Ed.), The
impact of suicide (pp. 7–39). New York: Springer.
Constantino, R., Sekula, L., & Rubinstein, E. (2001). Group in-
tervention for widowed survivors of suicide. Suicide and Life-
Threatening Behavior, 31, 428–441.
Crosby, A., & Sacks, J. (2002). Exposure to suicide: Incidence and
association with suicidal ideation and behavior: United States,
1994. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 32, 321–328.
De Fauw, N., & Andriessen, K. (2003). Networking to support
suicide survivors. Crisis, 24, 29–31.
D’Oliveira, F. (2006). Service for suicide survivors opens in Bra-
zil. News Bulletin IASP, Dec. 2006, 1.
Dyregrov, K. (2002). Assistance from local authorities versus sur-
vivors’ needs for support after suicide. Death Studies, 26,
647–668.
Farberow, N. (1992). The Los Angeles Survivors-after-Suicide
program. An evaluation. Crisis, 13, 23–34.
Farberow, N. (1998). Suicide survivor programs in IASP member
countries. In R. Kosky, H. Eshkevari, R. Goldney, & R. Hassan
(Eds.), Suicide prevention: The global context (pp. 293–297).
New York: Plenum.
Farberow, N. (2001). Helping suicide survivors. In D. Lester
(Ed.), Suicide prevention. Resources for the millennium
(pp. 189–212). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Fisher, J. (2004, October). The StandBy Suicide Bereavement Re-
sponse Service. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Suicide
Prevention Australia National Conference, Sydney: SPA, Uni-
versity of NSW.
Fisher, J., Scheinpflug, S., Eames, R., & Combes, V. (2007). Rep-
licating the Standby Response Service, a national approach to
trialing and testing a bereavement response service. Living
Hope, Inaugural Australian Postvention Conference, May
2007, Book of Abstracts (30). Sydney: University of NSW.
Grad, O. (1996). Suicide: How to survive as a survivor? Crisis,
17, 136–142.
Grad, O. (2005). Suicide survivorship: An unknown journey from
loss to gain, from individual to global perspective. In K. Haw-
ton (Ed.), Prevention and treatment of suicidal behavior, from
science to practice (pp. 351–369). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Grad, O., Clark, S., Dyregrov, K., & Andriessen, K. (2004). What
helps and what hinders the process of surviving the suicide of
somebody close? Crisis, 25, 134–139.
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 K. Andriessen: Can Postvention Be Prevention?
Hawton, K., & Simkin, S. (2003). Helping people bereaved by
suicide. British Medical Journal, 327, 177–178.
Ho, T., Leung, P., Hung, S., Lee, C., & Tang, C. (2000). The men-
tal health of the peers of suicide completers and attempters.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Sci-
ences, 41, 301–308.
Hoffmann, W. (2006). Telematic technologies in mental health car-
ing: A web-based psychoeducational program for adolescent sui-
cide survivors. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27, 461–474.
Jordan, J., & McMenamy, J. (2004). Interventions for suicide sur-
vivors: A review of the literature. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 34, 337–349.
Jordan, J., & Neimeyer, R. (2003). Does grief counseling work?
Death Studies, 27, 765–786.
Krysinska, K. (2003). Loss by suicide. A risk factor for suicidal
behavior. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health
Services, 41, 34–41.
McIntosh, J. (2003). Suicide survivors: The aftermath of suicide and
suicidal behavior. In C.D. Bryant (Ed.), Death and dying: A ref-
erence handbook (pp. 339–350). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, A., Kim, Y., Prigerson, H., & Mortimer-Stephens, M.
(2004). Complicated grief in survivors of suicide. Crisis, 25,
12–18.
Peters, J. (2006). The operation of a national helpline for suicide
survivors in the UK. Abstract Book, 11th European Symposium
on Suicide and Suicidal Behavior. Psychiatria Danubina, 18
(suppl. 1), 108–109.
Pfeffer, C., Jiang, H., Kakuma, T., Hwang, J., & Metsch, M.
(2002). Group intervention for children bereaved by the sui-
cide of a relative. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 505–513.
Provini, C., Everett, J., & Pfeffer, C. (2000). Adults mourning sui-
cide: Self-reported concerns about bereavement, needs for assis-
tance, and help-seeking behavior. Death Studies, 24, 1–19.
Saarinen, P., Hintikka, J., Viinamäki, H., Lehtonen, J., & Lönn-
qvist, J. (2000). Is it possible to adapt to the suicide of a close
individual? Results of a 10-year prospective follow-up study.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 46, 182–190.
Saarinen, P., Viinamäki, H., Hintikka, J., Lehtonen, J., & Lönn-
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
View publication stats
47
qvist, J. (1999). Psychological symptoms of close relatives of
suicide victims. European Journal of Psychiatry, 13, 33–39.
Schut, H., Stroebe, M., Van Den Bout, J., & Terheggen, M.
(2001). The efficacy of bereavement interventions: Determin-
ing who benefits. In M. Stroebe, R. Hansson, W. Stroebe, &
H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research, conse-
quences, coping, and care (pp. 705–737). Washington: Amer-
ican Psychological Association.
Scocco, P., Frasson, A., Costacurta, A., & Pavan, L. (2006). SO-
PRoxi: A research-intervention project for suicide survivors.
Crisis, 27, 39–41.
Shear, K., Frank, E., Houck, P., & Reynolds, C. (2005). Treatment
of complicated grief. A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 293, 2601–2608.
Shneidman, E. (1969). Prologue: Fifty-eight years. In E. Shneid-
man (Ed.), On the nature of suicide (pp. 1–30). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
About the author
Karl Andriessen, BSW, MSuicidology, is Coordinator of the Sui-
cide Prevention Project of the Mental Health Centers, FDGG-
VVI, in Flanders-Belgium, National IASP Belgian Representa-
tive, and Co-Chair of IASP Taskforce Postvention and recipient
of the 2005 IASP Farberow Postvention Award.
Karl Andriessen
Suicide Prevention Project of the Flemish Mental Health
Centers, FDGG-VVI
c/o Martelaarslaan 204b
B-9000 Gent
Belgium
Tel. +32 9 233-50-99
Fax +32 9 233-35-89
E-mail info@zelfmoordpreventievlaanderen.be
Crisis 2009; Vol. 30(1):43–47