4.3 Review

Systematic review of the prevalence of suicide in veterinary surgeons

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 436-446

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqq044

关键词

Epidemiology; occupation; suicide

资金

  1. Hill's Pet Nutrition
  2. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust Fund
  3. Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF)
  4. Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
  5. National Institute for Health Research
  6. NIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background An accumulating body of research demonstrates that risk of suicide varies between occupational groups. Identification of the occupations at risk, and the factors that contribute to the increased risk of suicide in these groups is essential for the development of effective suicide prevention strategies. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that veterinary surgeons are a group at risk. Aims To conduct a systematic review of studies of rates and methods of suicide in the veterinary profession. Methods A systematic search of the international research literature was performed in May 2008. The data from the 19 studies of the prevalence of suicide in the veterinary profession were extracted by two independent reviewers and analysed. Results Between 0 and 43% of veterinary surgeon deaths were due to suicide. In all but one of the 15 studies presenting risk of suicide in veterinary surgeons with a comparison population, an elevated risk was found. The better quality studies with the lowest risk of bias indicated that in the UK, the rate of suicide in the veterinary profession was at least three times the general population rate. Studies of the methods of suicide veterinary surgeons use suggest that self-poisoning and firearms are particularly common. Conclusions There appears to be an elevated risk of suicide for veterinary surgeons in several countries. Access to means of suicide influences the methods used and may contribute to increased risk.

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