Production losses attributable to suicide deaths in European Union

Comorbid physical health burden of serious mental health disorders in 32 European countries

BACKGROUND

Mental health disorders (MHDs) are associated with physical health disparities, but underlying excess risk and health burden have not yet been comprehensively assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the burden of comorbid physical health conditions (PHCs) across serious MHDs in Europe.

METHODS

We estimated the relative prevalence risk of PHCs associated with alcohol use disorders (AUD), bipolar disorder (BD), depressive disorders (DD) and schizophrenia (SZ) across working-age populations of 32 European countries in 2019 based on a targeted literature review. Excess physical health burden was modelled using population-attributable fractions and country-level prevalence data.

FINDINGS

We screened 10 960 studies, of which 41 were deemed eligible, with a total sample size of over 18 million persons. Relative prevalence of PHCs was reported in 54%, 20%, 15%, 5% and 7% of studies, respectively, for SZ, DD, BD, AUD or mixed. Significant relative risk estimates ranged from 1.44 to 3.66 for BD, from 1.43 to 2.21 for DD, from 0.81 to 1.97 for SZ and 3.31 for AUD. Excess physical health burden ranged between 27% and 67% of the total, corresponding to 84 million (AUD), 67 million (BD), 66 million (DD) and 5 million (SZ) PHC diagnoses in Europe. A 1% reduction in excess risk assuming causal inference could result in two million fewer PHCs across investigated MHDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive study of the physical health burden of serious MHDs in Europe. The methods allow for updates, refinement and extension to other MHDs or geographical areas.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The results indicate potential population health benefits achievable through more integrated mental and physical healthcare and prevention approaches.

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Brief Resilience Scale

Objective

: To translate the Brief Resilience Scale into Korean and evaluate its reliability and validity.

Methods

: To investigate the factor structure of the Brief Resilience Scale, we examined a two-factor model comprising positively and negatively worded items. Congruent and divergent validity of the Brief Resilience Scale were investigated using correlation analysis between the Brief Resilience Scale and resilience, depression, and perceived stress. By conducting an analysis of variance among groups classified by suicidality (no suicidality, only suicidal ideation, and suicidal ideation or suicidal plan groups), we evaluated how well the Brief Resilience Scale could detect people with a high risk of suicide.

Results

: Confirmatory factor analysis results supported the construct validity of the Brief Resilience Scale using a two-factor model. Cronbach's alpha (0.91) and McDonald's omega (0.91) scores indicated high internal consistency. Correlation analysis showed that the Brief Resilience Scale scores were strongly associated with a questionnaire evaluating resilience, depression, and perceived stress. Analysis of variance and post-hoc tests showed that he Brief Resilience Scale scores were highest in the no suicidality group (p ＜ 0.001).

Conclusion

: The Korean version of the Brief Resilience Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating resilience as the capacity to recover from adversity and endure obstacles or stress. This study also provides important evidence regarding the sensitivity of the Brief Resilience Scale to suicidal risk.

Specific anxiety and depression symptoms are risk factors for the onset of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in youth

BACKGROUND

Suicidality research has typically focused on affective disorders to identify at-risk youth. Investigating the predictive role of individual symptoms, particularly anxiety symptoms, may allow for preventative targeting of additional risk factors for suicidal ideation and attempts.

METHODS

This analysis used the Sources of Strength Australia project dataset, a cluster randomised controlled trial which assessed the impact of a schools-based intervention for youth help-seeking over 18 months (Calear et al., 2022). Symptoms of anxiety, depression and distress at baseline were used to predict the onset of suicidal ideation, planning for suicide and suicide attempts at 18 months.

RESULTS

Worry, lack of sleep and anxiety interfering with everyday activities at baseline predicted new onset of suicidal ideation 18 months later. Worry about the future and past, reduced appetite and a belief that life wasn't worth living were risk factors for later suicide plans and attempts. Total scale scores on the scales were typically poor predictors of onset of suicidal behaviours.

LIMITATIONS

Analyses were impacted by dropouts over the 18 month study period and restricted further investigation into potential behaviour transition trajectories.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings identify individual symptom profiles associated with later onset of suicidal behaviour. Broadening the focus beyond depression and hopelessness to incorporate anxiety, worry and reduced sleep as risk factors for suicidality is important for public health and clinical settings.

[Why do we require clinical guidelines for suicide prevention?]

Trotz der Relevanz des Themas Suizidalität und gut bekannter Risikofaktoren gibt es bisher keine deutsche Leitlinie zur Suizidalität im Erwachsenenalter. In diesem Beitrag werden zunächst die Geschichte und die Hintergründe der Arbeit mit Leitlinien beschrieben. Der aktuelle Stand der Leitlinien für psychische Erkrankungen in Deutschland wird dargestellt und auf suizidpräventive Inhalte hin untersucht. Die Notwendigkeit evidenzbasierter Suizidprävention und einer spezifischen Leitlinie zur Suizidprävention bei Erwachsenen wird diskutiert.

Nur durch gezielte Suizidpräventionsstrategien und Interventionen für die jeweiligen Risikogruppen und unter Beachtung von Alters- und Geschlechtsspezifität kann für alle Betroffenen eine flächendeckende, gut erreichbare, bedarfs- und versorgungsgerechte, finanzierbare sowie nachhaltige medizinische Versorgung auf einem hohen Niveau sichergestellt werden. Dies gilt für den ambulanten und den stationären Bereich sowie für deren Schnittstellen. Bei Suizidalität handelt es sich um ein diagnoseübergreifendes, in unterschiedlichen Versorgungskontexten auftretendes Syndrom mit komplexem Behandlungsbedarf, weshalb intersektorale und multiprofessionelle Aspekte in einer entsprechenden Leitlinie besonders zu adressieren sind. Wissenschaftliche Evidenz und interdisziplinärer Konsens unter Expertinnen und Experten zum Umgang mit suizidalem Verhalten in der medizinischen Versorgung können dazu beitragen, Morbidität und Mortalität im Zusammenhang mit Suizidalität zu reduzieren. Im August 2021 wurde die Finanzierung einer S3-Leitlinie „Umgang mit Suizidalität“ vom Innovationsfonds des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses bewilligt.