4.4 Article

Widening socioeconomic inequalities in Australian suicide, despite recent declines in suicide rates

Journal

SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 9, Pages 969-976

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-018-1527-9

Keywords

Suicide; Socioeconomic inequality; Socioeconomic status; Australia

Categories

Funding

  1. Lifeline Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose This study aims to investigate trends in socioeconomic inequalities of suicide from 1979 to 2013 for Australian males and females aged 15-34 years and 35-64 years. Methods Data on suicides and population were obtained from national registries. An area-based measure of socioeconomic status (SES) was used, and categorized into low, middle, and high SES areas. Suicide rates for each SES groups were estimated using a negative binomial regression model, adjusted for confounders. Socioeconomic inequalities in suicide were assessed using absolute and relative risk of low-to-high SES areas. Secular changes in socioeconomic inequalities were assessed using trend tests for relative risk. Results For young males, there was an increase in socioeconomic inequality driven by a significant decrease in suicide rates in high SES areas. For older males, inequality in suicide increased by 29%, which was related to a marked increase in suicide rates in low SES areas. Inequalities in both young and older female suicides also increased. These increases occurred when corresponding suicide rates in high SES areas decreased. Conclusions Recent widening socioeconomic inequalities in Australian suicide have been primarily associated with declines in suicide rates in high SES areas. However, an increasing inequality in older male suicide is linked with low SES. Efforts targeting people from poor areas, especially older males, should be considered when developing suicide prevention strategy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available