Means restriction for suicide prevention

Limitation of access to lethal methods used for suicide—so-called means restriction—is an important population strategy for suicide prevention. Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Lancet (British edition) Vol. 379; no. 9834; pp. 2393 - 2399
Main Authors Yip, Paul SF, Prof, Caine, Eric, Prof, Yousuf, Saman, FCPS, Chang, Shu-Sen, PhD, Wu, Kevin Chien-Chang, PhD, Chen, Ying-Yeh, Dr
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 23.06.2012
Elsevier
Subjects
Adult and adolescent clinical studies
Biological and medical sciences
death
General aspects
Humans
Internal Medicine
lethal dose
Mass Media
Medical sciences
people
Prevention and actions
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Public Health - methods
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Risk Reduction Behavior
Suicide
Suicide - prevention & control
Suicide - psychology
Human
Medicine
Prevention
Suicide
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Limitation of access to lethal methods used for suicide—so-called means restriction—is an important population strategy for suicide prevention. Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, the means chosen are less lethal and are associated with fewer deaths than when more dangerous ones are available. We examine how the spread of information about suicide methods through formal and informal media potentially affects the choices that people make when attempting to kill themselves. We also discuss the challenges associated with implementation of means restriction and whether numbers of deaths by suicide are reduced.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60521-2
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-2
Contributors
PSFY, EC, S-SC, KC-CW, and Y-YC conceived this report. PSFY and Y-YC wrote the first draft. EC and Y-YC revised the report. SY and S-SC undertook systematic searches of the literature. SY compiled the table in the appendix.
ISSN:0140-6736
1474-547X
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60521-2