4.5 Article

Suicide methods in children and adolescents

期刊

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 155-164

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-016-0865-y

关键词

Children; Adolescents; Youth; Suicide methods; World

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP0990918]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP0990918] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are notable differences in suicide methods between countries. The aim of this paper is to analyse and describe suicide methods in children and adolescents aged 10-19 years in different countries/territories worldwide. Suicide data by ICD-10 X codes were obtained from the WHO Mortality Database and population data from the World Bank. In total, 101 countries or territories, have data at least for 5 years in 2000-2009. Cluster analysis by suicide methods was performed for countries/territories with at least 10 suicide cases separately by gender (74 for males and 71 for females) in 2000-2009. The most frequent suicide method was hanging, followed by poisoning by pesticides for females and firearms for males. Cluster analyses of similarities in the country/territory level suicide method patterns by gender identified four clusters for both gender. Hanging and poisoning by pesticides defined the clusters of countries/territories by their suicide patterns in youth for both genders. In addition, a mixed method and a jumping from height cluster were identified for females and two mixed method clusters for males. A number of geographical similarities were observed. Overall, the patterns of suicide methods in children and adolescents reflect lethality, availability and acceptability of suicide means similarly to country specific patterns of all ages. Means restriction has very good potential in preventing youth suicides in different countries. It is also crucial to consider cognitive availability influenced by sensationalised media reporting and/or provision of technical details about specific methods.

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

4.5
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