4.1 Article

Paradoxes of interdependence and dependence: A qualitative study of economic difficulties and relational encounters prior to men's suicide in Ghana

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2023.2225935

关键词

Suicide; Men; Economic challenges; Dependence; Ghana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the relational encounters shaped by economic difficulties prior to men's suicides in Ghana. Data were collected from 21 close relatives of nine men who took their lives, and a Reflective Thematic analysis reveals themes of interdependence and dependence among men facing economic challenges. Increased public education to change unhealthy gender norms and practical economic support for men in economic adversity are recommended.
Purpose This study aims to explore the relational encounters that are shaped by economic difficulties prior to the suicides of men in Ghana. Method Using a qualitative study design, and with the aid of a semi-structured interview guide, data were collected from 21 close relatives of nine men who took their lives in Ghana. Results/Findings A Reflective Thematic analysis (RTA) showed themes reflecting four relational tensions corresponding to unique demographic profiles and circumstances of economic dependence on others: from dependence to independence; from control to living with and on others; from provider to dependence; and regaining control in a dependent relational context. Conclusion The men's economic challenges produce paradoxes of interdependence and dependence in that the interdependent social ethic enjoins persons in crises to disclose or seek help from close relations, yet for some men, doing so often draws social taunts, which further taint the social image of these men and contribute to suicides. Increased public education is needed to change unhealthy gender norms that affect men in social and economic adversity. Provision of practical economic support for men in economic and financial adversities is highly recommended.

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

4.1
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