4.7 Review

The lethality of suicide methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 300, 期 -, 页码 121-129

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.054

关键词

Suicide; Methods; Lethality; Case fatality; Suicide prevention

资金

  1. General Research Grant [17103620]
  2. Prestigious Fellowship Scheme [37000320]
  3. National Social Science Fund of China [21CSH057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a meta-analysis to determine case fatality rates for different suicide methods, highlighting the wide variation in lethality. The findings emphasize the importance of restricting highly lethal methods based on local context in suicide prevention efforts.
Background: The use of suicide methods largely determines the outcome of suicide acts. However, no existing meta-analysis has assessed the case fatality rates (CFRs) by different suicide methods. The current study aimed to fill this gap. Methods: We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest and Embase for studies reporting method specific CFRs in suicide, published from inception to 31 December 2020. A random-effect model meta analysis was applied to compute pooled estimates. Results: Of 10,708 studies screened, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the suicide acts that resulted in death or hospitalization, firearms were found to be the most lethal method (CFR:89.7%), followed by hanging/suffocation (84.5%), drowning (80.4%), gas poisoning (56.6%), jumping (46.7%), drug/liquid poisoning (8.0%) and cutting (4.0%). The rank of the lethality for different methods remained relatively stable across study setting, sex and age group. Method-specific CFRs for males and females were similar for most suicide methods, while method-CFRs were specifically higher in older adults. Conclusions: This study is the first meta-analysis that provides significant evidence for the wide variation of the lethality of suicide methods. Restricting highly lethal methods based on local context is vital 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

4.7
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