4.6 Article

The impact of media reporting of suicide on actual suicides in Taiwan, 2002-05

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 934-940

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2010.117903

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health, Taipei City Government [99001-62-016]
  2. Research Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government
  3. UNSW SFRG/ECR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess changes in the intensity of suicide news reporting in Taiwan's local newspapers after the arrival of a daily tabloid-type newspaper, Apple Daily (AD), and evaluate the impact of suicide news reporting on actual suicides and possible mutual causation. Methods A counting process was used to estimate the intensity of daily suicide news items reported in the China Times (CT) and United Daily (UD) before and after the arrival of AD (2002-05). Poisson regression models were used to assess the impact of the intensity of suicide news reporting on the actual number of next day suicides. Granger's causation model was used to assess mutual causation between suicide news reporting and actual suicides. Results There was a significant increase in reporting intensity of suicide news in the UD soon after the entry of the AD into Taiwan's media market, while a delayed increase of approximately 1 year was observed in the CT. After the arrival of the AD, the reporting intensity in the UD was significantly related to the occurrence of actual suicides (p<0.05), even after controlling for social variables, whereas no significant correlation was previously observed. Mutual causation between suicide news reporting and actual suicides was also observed. Conclusions The presence of the AD in Taiwan has fuelled competitive reporting of suicide news among traditional newspapers. This increase in the intensity of suicide news reporting has consequently had an impact on the actual number of suicides. This provides further empirical support for improving media reporting as a key element in suicide prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据