4.3 Review

Risk factors for suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological autopsy studies

期刊

EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 148-155

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2022-300549

关键词

Suicide & self-harm; Adult psychiatry

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [202836/Z/16/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [202836/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective prevention of suicide requires a comprehensive understanding of risk factors. Clinical factors, such as mental disorders and a history of self-harm, have the strongest associations with suicide. On the other hand, factors related to sociodemographic status, family history, and adverse life events have smaller effects.
Question Effective prevention of suicide requires a comprehensive understanding of risk factors. Study selection and analysis Five databases were systematically searched to identify psychological autopsy studies (published up to February 2022) that reported on risk factors for suicide mortality among adults in the general population. Effect sizes were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models for each risk factor examined in at least three independent samples. Findings A total of 37 case-control studies from 23 countries were included, providing data on 40 risk factors in 5633 cases and 7101 controls. The magnitude of effect sizes varied substantially both between and within risk factor domains. Clinical factors had the strongest associations with suicide, including any mental disorder (OR=13.1, 95% CI 9.9 to 17.4) and a history of self-harm (OR=10.1, 95% CI 6.6 to 15.6). By comparison, effect sizes were smaller for other domains relating to sociodemographic status, family history, and adverse life events (OR range 2-5). Conclusions A wide range of predisposing and precipitating factors are associated with suicide among adults in the general population, but with clear differences in their relative strength. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021232878.

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

4.3
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