CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2943 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

Eight non-obligatory postcards over 12 months,
does it really help with Reduced repetition after deliberate self-poisoning?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 56 · Safety unknown
The number of repeaters did not decline, while repeat-event count did
No separate adverse-event endpoint was reported, and the evidence does not establish reduced suicide mortality.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. Any repetition occurred in 57/378 (15.1%) versus 68/394 (17.3%), difference -2 points (95% CI -7 to 3), a null result. Total repeat events were 101 versus 192, IRR 0.55 (95% CI 0.35-0.87). The number of repeaters did not fall; repeated episodes among a small group did.
What the
ads claim
Claims must say that repeater prevalence did not fall while total repeat episodes did, presenting both coprimary outcomes together.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The intervention sent eight postcards without requiring a reply over 12 months.
  • Hospital administrative data captured treated events.
  • The trial did not demonstrate fewer suicide deaths.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2943 · C 56
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

In Newcastle, Australia, 772 participants aged 16 or older were randomized to postcards, 378, or usual care, 394. Funding came from Hunter Area Health Service, NSW Health, and NHMRC. A 14-trial meta-analysis of letters, postcards, calls, and cards found the same pattern: any repetition OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.74-1.04), suicide OR 0.58 (0.24-1.38), and repeat-event rate IRR 0.66 (0.54-0.80). It concluded that widespread clinical implementation could not yet be recommended.

02

Why this is classified as C (56)

A publicly funded trial and class meta-analysis support fewer repeat events, but split coprimary outcomes give C with 56 points.

Counterpoint. Reduced repeater prevalence and suicide have not been established for widespread implementation.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — A publicly funded randomized trial reduced repeat-event count but not the coprimary proportion of repeaters

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Fewer people with any repetitionD15.1% versus 17.3%, with the interval including zero.
Fewer repeat eventsCThere were 101 versus 192 events, IRR 0.55.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Randomized usual-care-controlled trial394Hunter Area Health Service, NSW Health, and NHMRCProportion with any repetition and number of repeat events per personRepeaters 15.1% vs 17.3%, difference -2 points (-7 to 3); events 101 vs 192, IRR 0.55 (0.35-0.87)Pivotal trial with split coprimary outcomes
Study 2Meta-analysis of 14 brief-contact trials14Varied by original trial; synthesis not double-counted as another trialAny repetition, suicide, and repeat events per personOR 0.87 (0.74-1.04), OR 0.58 (0.24-1.38), IRR 0.66 (0.54-0.80)Class synthesis showing the same pattern
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Carter GL, Clover K, Whyte IM, Dawson AH, D'Este C. Postcards from the EDge project: randomised controlled trial of an intervention using postcards to reduce repetition of hospital treated deliberate self poisoning. BMJ. 2005;331:805. PMID: 16183654.
checked
Milner AJ, Carter G, Pirkis J, Robinson J, Spittal MJ. Letters, green cards, telephone calls and postcards: systematic and meta-analytic review of brief contact interventions. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;206:184-190. PMID: 25733570.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Non-Obligatory Postcards for Reducing Repeat Episodes of Deliberate Self-Poisoning Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Non-Obligatory Postcards for Reducing Repeat Episodes of Deliberate Self-Poisoning — Evidence Grade C·56. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/mood/postcards-self-poisoning-repeat-events/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.