O'Carroll P W
Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 1989 Spring;19(1):1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1943-278x.1989.tb00362.x.
The question of the validity and reliability of suicide statistics may be considered at three levels: (1) Are suicide deaths misidentified or differentially identified across jurisdictions or over time? (2) To what degree are suicide deaths misidentified? and (3) Is the degree to which suicides are misidentified sufficient to threaten the validity of research based on suicide statistics? There is general agreement that suicides are likely to be undercounted, both for structural reasons (the burden-of-proof issue, the requirement that the coroner or medical examiner suspect the possibility of suicide) and for sociocultural reasons. There is also substantial anecdotal and empirical evidence suggesting that the mode of death for some true suicides is in fact certified as other than suicide. Overall, it does not seem that very many true nonsuicides are incorrectly certified as suicides. There is not, however, much agreement as to the degree to which true suicides are undercounted. At least some of the inconsistencies in the findings of different investigators arise because the validity of suicide certification seems to vary from place to place. But the source of apparent conflicts in many of the findings is undoubtedly the lack of a "gold standard" against which the verdicts of any given death certification process can be measured. At best, we can estimate that the sensitivity with which coroners and medical examiners certify true suicides varies from approximately 55% to 99%. A central question in estimating the sensitivity of suicide certification is this: What proportion of true suicides are either equivocal or likely to go unsuspected by the coroner or medical examiner? Very little has been done to investigate this issue. Yet the sensitivity of suicide certification clearly varies for equivocal versus unequivocal suicides. As shown in Table 1.2, specificity is also at issue when it comes to certifying equivocal cases. The final question--whether the degree of undercounting of suicide deaths is so great that it threatens the validity of research based on official statistics--is at the crux of the general concern about suicide certification. There are examples of studies in which conclusions based on crude comparisons of reported suicide statistics appear to be invalid. For the most part, these are comparisons among nations with substantially differing death certification procedures. When official statistics are interpreted with a degree of caution and an understanding of the source and direction of biases likely to affect the published rates, however, it seems unlikely that major conclusions based on these statistics will be in error.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
(1)自杀死亡在不同司法管辖区或不同时间是否被错误认定或存在差异认定?(2)自杀死亡被错误认定的程度如何?以及(3)自杀被错误认定的程度是否足以威胁基于自杀统计数据的研究的有效性?人们普遍认为,由于结构原因(举证责任问题、验尸官或法医需怀疑自杀可能性的要求)和社会文化原因,自杀很可能被低估。也有大量传闻和实证证据表明,一些真正自杀者的死亡方式实际上被认定为非自杀。总体而言,似乎没有太多真正的非自杀者被错误地认定为自杀。然而,对于真正的自杀被低估的程度,并没有太多共识。不同研究者的研究结果至少有一些不一致之处,是因为自杀认定的有效性似乎因地区而异。但许多研究结果中明显冲突的根源无疑是缺乏一个“金标准”,据此可以衡量任何给定死亡认证过程的判定。充其量,我们可以估计验尸官和法医认定真正自杀的敏感度约在55%至99%之间。估计自杀认定敏感度的一个核心问题是:真正的自杀中有多大比例模棱两可或很可能未被验尸官或法医怀疑?对此问题的调查做得很少。然而,对于模棱两可与明确的自杀,自杀认定的敏感度显然不同。如表1.2所示,在认定模棱两可的案例时,特异性也是个问题。最后一个问题——自杀死亡被低估的程度是否严重到威胁基于官方统计数据的研究的有效性——是对自杀认定普遍关注的关键所在。有一些研究实例,基于报告的自杀统计数据进行粗略比较得出的结论似乎是无效的。在很大程度上,这些是不同国家死亡认证程序差异很大的比较。然而,当官方统计数据在一定程度上谨慎解读,并理解可能影响公布率的偏差来源和方向时,基于这些统计数据得出的主要结论似乎不太可能有误。(摘要截选至400字)