Citation

Kolves K, De Leo D. J. Adolesc. Health 2016; 59(1): 128-129.

Affiliation

Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.04.011

PMID

27338667

Abstract

We are indebted to Cramer and Akpinar-Elci for their call for multidisciplinary and holistic approaches in suicide prevention. These colleagues remind us that the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report, Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative [1], signals for the period 2000–2012 a significant reduction in the number of suicide deaths worldwide (9%) with a corresponding decrease in global rates of 26%. The size of interventions so far specifically targeting suicide reduction has been probably too small to even try a tentative association with suicide prevention practices. In fact, the WHO report suggests that general improvements in quality of life and health assistance are possibly to be related more convincingly with the detected declines [1]. We are not aware of any publications listing for each country suicide prevention programs and potential beneficiaries (individuals both directly and indirectly exposed): this sort of report would be very helpful for hypothesizing the impact of specific practices. Today, nearly one sixth of all countries have national strategies to reduce suicidal behavior. It would be reassuring to think that the implementation of those programs is responsible for the declines observed; however, this still remains unproven. It is interesting to note that most important reductions have been recorded among older adults, who certainly have not benefitted from much attention in terms of suicide prevention programs [2]. Conversely, almost ubiquitously adolescents and young adults have been the focus of many more programs targeting suicide reduction but have witnessed less relevant declines.

Language: en