4.2 Article

Prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the general population of China: A meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY IN MEDICINE
Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 296-308

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0091217415589306

Keywords

Suicide attempts; suicidal ideation; prevalence; meta-analysis; China

Categories

Funding

  1. PHS NIH [D43 TW009101]
  2. PHS CDC [R49 CE002093]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The objective of this meta-analysis is to estimate the pooled prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the general population of Mainland China. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted via the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, China Journals Full-Text Databases, Chongqing VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wan Fang Data. Statistical analysis used the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program. Results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis; five reported on the prevalence of suicidal ideation and seven on that of suicide attempts. The estimated lifetime prevalence figures of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were 3.9% (95% confidence interval: 2.5%-6.0%) and 0.8% (95% confidence interval: 0.7%-0.9%), respectively. The estimated female-male ratio for lifetime prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts was 1.7 and 2.2, respectively. Only the difference of suicide attempts between the two genders was statistically significant. Conclusion This was the first meta-analysis of the prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the general population of Mainland China. The pooled lifetime prevalence of both suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are relatively low; however, caution is required when assessing these self-report data. Women had a modestly higher prevalence for suicide attempts than men. The frequency for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in urban regions was similar to those in rural areas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available