| Title |
Methods used for parasuicide: results of the WHO/EURO Multicentre Study on Parasuicide
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, May 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s001270050198 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Michel, P. Ballinari, U. Bille-Brahe, T. Bjerke, P. Crepet, D. De Leo, C. Haring, K. Hawton, A. Kerkhof, J. Lönnqvist, I. Querejeta, E. Salander-Renberg, A. Schmidtke, B. Temesvary, D. Wasserman |
| Abstract |
National suicide statistics show remarkable differences in the frequencies of various methods used for completed suicide. The WHO/EURO Multicentre Study on Parasuicide makes possible for the first time an international comparison of the frequencies of methods used in attempted suicide, because the data are based on geographical catchment areas of medical institutions. Ongoing standardized monitoring of attempted suicide in all medical institutions serving the catchment areas was performed in 14 centres in 12 European countries. The data analysis is based on 20,649 events involving 15,530 persons, recorded between 1989 and 1993. The comparison of rates per 100,000 shows striking differences between the centres. The highest rates for drug overdoses were found for female attempters in Oxford (347/100,000), Helsinki (238/100,000) and Stockholm (221/100,000). Guipuzcoa had the lowest rates (61/100,000). The differences were most prominent in the age group 15-24, with outstanding rates for women in Oxford (653/100,000), which was mainly due to the frequent use of analgesics. Szeged had outstandingly high rates for pesticides and solvents. In some centres the use of multiple methods was frequent. There is a need, especially for areas with high frequencies for certain methods, to understand the factors involved and to develop new and specific prevention projects and to monitor their effects. The WHO/EURO Multicentre Study on Parasuicide has proved to be a useful and reliable instrument for continuous monitoring of trends in parasuicide. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 26% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 38% |
| Psychology | 9 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,039,502
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#367
of 2,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,548
of 40,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 40,859 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.