The black-white suicide paradox: Possible effects of misclassification
This research addresses the paradox that the crude and age-adjusted suicide rates of United States blacks are less than half those of whites despite similar risks. Upper and lower limits for true suicide rates are estimated to assess the potential for differential suicide misclassification by race. Construction of these two rate scenarios respectively incorporate one or all of the three cause-of-death categories identified in the literature as most prone to obscure suicides: injury of undetermined intent and unintentional poisonings and drownings. The data source is the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, and the observation period is 1999-2002. We found that as in the official rates, the racial suicide gap persists within the lower and upper limit scenarios. However, there is marked shrinkage under the upper limit scenario. That scenario even generates rate crossovers for males ages 45-54 years and females ages 85 years and older. Suicide data appear relatively more deficient for black females than for black males. Racial data disparities are minimal for youth and young adults, and maximal for middle-aged males and the oldest and younger middle-aged females. Results strongly indicate greater susceptibility of medico-legal authorities to misclassify black suicides than white suicides. To demystify the racial suicide paradox, research is needed on medical histories and other biographical information that are accessible by the authorities in equivocal cases. To meet the standards of evidence-based medicine and public health, high-quality suicide data are an imperative for risk group delineation; risk factor identification; policy formulation; program planning, implementation, and evaluation; and ultimately, effective prevention.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 63 (2006)
Issue (Month): 8 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:8:p:2165-2175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.