4.6 Article

Changes in male suicides in Scottish prisons: 10-year study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 192, Issue 6, Pages 446-449

Publisher

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.038679

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260794] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U105260794] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260794] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In 1999 I estimated the expected number of UK prison suicides, taking into account that opioid users' deaths from suicide were 10 times the number expected for their age and gender. Changes have since taken place in Scottish prisons. Aims To estimate the expected number of male suicides in Scottish prisons in 1994-2003, having taken age and opioid dependency into account; and to consider the extremes of prisoner age. Method The effective number that prisons safeguard in terms of suicide risk was approximated as 10 times the number of opioid-dependent inmates plus other inmates. By applying age-appropriate suicide rates for Scottish males to these effective numbers, expectations for male suicides in Scottish prisons were calculated. Results In 1994-98, there were at least 57 male suicides, significantly exceeding the age- and opioid-adjusted expectation of 41. In 1999-2003, the 51 male suicides in prison were consistent with expectation (upper 95% limit: at least 54). During the decade 1994-2003, observed and expected suicides were mismatched at both extremes of age: 40 males aged 15-24 years died by suicide v. 24 expected, and 13 males aged 45+ v. 2 expected. Against 4.5 prison suicides expected for males aged 15-24 years during a 2-year period, actual suicides were 3 in 2002 + 2003 and 4 in 2004 + 2005. Conclusions Scotland has redressed an excess of male suicides, especially by its youngest prisoners.

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