4.4 Review

Suicide among agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3682

关键词

agriculture; farmer; forestry worker; occupation; systematic review; working population

资金

  1. CCMSA (convention de partenariat CCMSA - Sante publique France - Etude Suicide Salaries Agricoles)
  2. Sante publique France [15-S-ST-T-20-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This review aimed to quantify suicide risk among agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers and study potential variations of risk within this population. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis from 1995 to 2016 using MEDLINE and following the PRISMA guidelines. A pooled effect size of suicide risk among the population of interest was calculated using meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate whether effect size differed according to population or study characteristics. Meta-regression was used to identify sources of heterogeneity. Results The systematic review identified 65 studies, of which 32 were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled effect size was 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.68] representing an excess of suicide risk among the population of interest. Subgroup analysis showed that this effect size varied according to geographic area, with a higher effect size in Japan. The following study characteristics were found to contribute to the between-study variance: reference group, measure of effect size, and study design. Conclusions Our findings suggest an excess of suicide risk among agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers and demonstrated that this excess may be even higher for these groups in Japan. This review highlights the need for suicide prevention policies focusing on this specific population of workers. More research is also needed to better understand the underlying factors that may increase suicide risk in this population.

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

4.4
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