4.6 Review

Sexual orientation and suicidal behaviour in adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysist

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 211, Issue 2, Pages 77-+

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.116.196345

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Secretaria Nacional de Education Superior, Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion, Ecuador
  2. Institute de Salud Carlos III [CD12/00440]
  3. ISCIII-FEDER [PI13/00343]
  4. ISCIII-FIS [CM14/ 00125]
  5. ISCIII [ECA07/059]
  6. AGAUR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Research suggests that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adolescents have a higher risk of suicidal behaviours than their heterosexual peers, but little is known about specific risk factors. Alms To assess sexual orientation as a risk factor for suicidal behaviours, and to identify other risk factors among LGB adolescents and young adults. Method A systematic search was made of six databases up to June 2015, including a grey literature search. Population-based longitudinal studies considering non-clinical populations aged 12-26 years and assessing being LGB as a risk factor for suicidal behaviour compared with being heterosexual, or evaluating risk factors for suicidal behaviour within LGB populations, were included. Random effect models were used in meta-analysis. Results Sexual orientation was significantly associated with suicide attempts in adolescents and youths (OR=2.26, 95% CI 1.603.20). Gay or bisexual men were more likely to report suicide attempts compared with heterosexual men (OR=2.21, 95% Cl 1.21-4.04). Based on two studies, a non-significant positive association was found between depression and suicide attempts in LGB groups. Conclusions Sexual orientation is associated with a higher risk of suicide attempt in young people. Further research is needed to assess completed suicide, and specific risk factors affecting the LGB population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available