↓ Skip to main content

The gender gap in suicide and premature death or: why are men so vulnerable?

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, February 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 1,644)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
382 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
370 Mendeley
Title
The gender gap in suicide and premature death or: why are men so vulnerable?
Published in
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, February 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00406-003-0397-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Maria Möller-Leimkühler

Abstract

Suicide and premature death due to coronary heart disease, violence, accidents, drug or alcohol abuse are strikingly male phenomena, particularly in the young and middle-aged groups. Rates of offending behaviour, conduct disorders, suicide and depression are even rising, and give evidence to a high gender-related vulnerability of young men. In explaining this vulnerability, the gender perspective offers an analytical tool to integrate structural and cultural factors. It is shown that traditional masculinity is a key risk factor for male vulnerability promoting maladaptive coping strategies such as emotional unexpressiveness, reluctance to seek help, or alcohol abuse. This basic male disposition is shown to increase psychosocial stress due to different societal conditions: to changes in male gender-role, to postmodern individualism and to rapid social change in Eastern Europe and Russia. Relying on empirical data and theoretical explanations, a gender model of male vulnerability is proposed. It is concluded that the gender gap in suicide and premature death can most likely be explained by perceived reduction in social role opportunities leading to social exclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 363 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 16%
Student > Bachelor 50 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 12%
Researcher 35 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 8%
Other 73 20%
Unknown 78 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 107 29%
Social Sciences 62 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 58 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 2%
Other 38 10%
Unknown 88 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2024.
All research outputs
#752,363
of 25,525,181 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#40
of 1,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,001
of 141,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,525,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them