Sainsbury P
World Health Stat Q. 1983;36(3-4):339-48.
For a number of reasons, suicide is under-reported and the reliability of official rates is subject to error through variations in defining and reporting cases, the kind of inaccuracy encountered when ascertaining cases in studies of mortality from any cause. Nevertheless, the evidence from studies designed to see whether these sources of error invalidate the differences reported between cultural and social groups indicates that they are of a random nature, at least to an extent that allows epidemiologists to compare rates between countries and districts within them, between demographic groups, and over periods of time. The accuracy and hence the value of official suicide statistics has been questioned in recent years to an extent that has led some authorities to dismiss their usefulness in epidemiological research. In England and Wales, a decision as to whether an unexpected or violent death is a suicide or not is normally made at a coroner's inquest; similar, but by no means identical procedures are followed in other developed countries. Cases defined and ascertained in this way are the usual source of national suicide statistics. Indeed, it may be claimed that the medical and post-mortem inquiry together with the evidence of witnesses on the psychological and social circumstances relating to the act, entail a more thorough investigation into this cause of death than is usual in compiling the statistics of deaths from other causes. Consider by contrast the General Registrar Office enquiry into the accuracy of reporting other causes of death (1). When, for example, deaths from cancer of the lung are registered before holding a post-mortem and the cause of death is later checked by a pathologist, the net error is about 16%. The conclusions drawn from official cancer statistics, however, are not seriously questioned. It is thus reasonable to expect suicide statistics, despite inaccuracies, also to be of heuristic value particularly as over-reporting is negligible, and it is only under-reporting, not a matter in dispute, that need be considered. Studies of under-reporting of suicide include those done in England and Wales (2), Scotland (3), and in Ireland where McCarthy & Walsh (4) examined coroners' case records in Dublin using clinical criteria to assess the probability of suicide. Though their revised rate was considerably higher than the official one, the Irish rate is still exceptionally low when compared with other countries. Barraclough (5) confirmed by other means that the adjusted rate was still half that of England.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
由于多种原因,自杀事件存在报告不足的情况,官方统计数据的可靠性也因病例定义和报告的差异而存在误差,这与在任何死因死亡率研究中确定病例时遇到的那种不准确情况相同。然而,旨在探究这些误差来源是否会使不同文化和社会群体间报告的差异无效的研究证据表明,这些误差至少在一定程度上具有随机性,这使得流行病学家能够比较不同国家及其内部不同地区、不同人口群体以及不同时间段的自杀率。近年来,官方自杀统计数据的准确性及其价值受到了质疑,以至于一些权威机构认为其在流行病学研究中毫无用处。在英格兰和威尔士,通常由验尸官在死因调查时判定意外或暴力死亡是否为自杀;其他发达国家也采用类似但绝非相同的程序。以这种方式定义和确定的病例是国家自杀统计数据的常见来源。实际上,可以说医学检查和尸检以及证人关于与该行为相关的心理和社会情况的证据,对这一死因的调查比编制其他死因统计数据时更为彻底。相比之下,考虑一下总登记官办公室对其他死因报告准确性的调查(1)。例如,肺癌死亡在进行尸检前登记,随后由病理学家检查死因,净误差约为16%。然而,从官方癌症统计数据得出的结论并未受到严重质疑。因此,尽管存在不准确之处,仍有理由期望自杀统计数据也具有启发性价值,特别是因为过度报告可忽略不计,只需考虑未报告情况,这并非争议点。对自杀未报告情况的研究包括在英格兰和威尔士(2)、苏格兰(3)以及爱尔兰进行的研究,在爱尔兰,麦卡锡和沃尔什(4)使用临床标准检查都柏林验尸官的病例记录以评估自杀可能性。尽管他们修订后的比率远高于官方比率,但与其他国家相比,爱尔兰的自杀率仍然极低。巴拉克拉夫(5)通过其他方式证实,调整后的比率仍为英格兰的一半。(摘要截选至400字)