4.7 Review

The epidemiology and prevention of suicide by hanging: a systematic review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 433-442

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh398

关键词

suicide; systematic review; hanging; suicide prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hanging is one of the most commonly used methods for suicide worldwide. In England and a number of other countries, its incidence has increased over the last 30 years. This review summarizes the published literature on suicide by hanging. The focus is on its epidemiology in England and on identifying potential means of prevention. Methods We searched Medline (1966-2003), Embase (1980-2003), CINAHL (1982-2003) and PsycINFO (1967-2003). As considerable research on suicides occurring in prisons and psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales has been carried out by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide (Manchester) and the Prison Service's Saler Custody Group, we obtained additional information from these sources. Results Only a small proportion (around 10%) of hanging suicides occur in the controlled environments of hospitals, prisons, and police custody; the remainder occur in the community. The most commonly used ligatures (rope, belts, flex) and ligature points (beams, banisters, hooks, door knobs, and trees) are widely available; thus prevention strategies focused around restriction of access to means of hanging are of limited value. Around 50% of hanging suicides are not fully suspended-ligature points below head level are commonly used. Case fatality following attempted suicide by hanging is around 70%; the majority (80-90%) of those who reach hospital alive survive. Conclusion Strategies to reduce suicide by hanging should focus on the prevention of suicide in controlled environments, the emergency management of 'near-hanging' and on the primary prevention of suicide in general. More research is required to better understand the recent rise in popularity of this method.

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