Good News? Assessing Time-Trends in Fidelity to Responsible Reporting of Suicide Guidelines in the Canadian News Media from 2019-2023
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Research indicates that detailed and sensational media coverage of suicide can contribute to suicide mortality, known as the Werther Effect. Other research indicates that responsible reporting of suicide can promote hope and resilience, which can reduce suicidality, known as the Papageno effect. This has led to the development of responsible reporting of suicide guidelines. In Canada, these are contained in a booklet called Mindset, which was co-created by journalists and mental health experts. Mindset lists bullet-pointed recommendations for journalists, and has been widely disseminated to newsrooms, journalism schools and media professionals across the country, in tandem with educational activities aimed at journalists by suicide prevention experts. Objectives The overall aim of this study is to assess fidelity to Mindset responsible reporting of suicide guidelines in the Canadian media over a multi-year period. A secondary objective is to assess whether fidelity to responsible reporting of suicide guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly different to pre/post pandemic reporting of suicide. Methods We collected articles from 47 different Canadian national and regional news sources mentioning the word suicide on a daily basis from April 1 st 2019 to March 31st 2023 (N=3,232). Each article was read and assessed for adherence to 12 key suicide reporting guidelines using a purposely-built coding sheet, derived from the Mindset guidelines. Trends in reporting were analyzed through time series analyses using a GLARMA model in R. software, including measuring for change during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Significant increases in putatively protective content were observed over the four years, including rises in the inclusion of help-seeking information and the quotation of experts. Similarly, there was a general decrease in content that is putatively harmful, for example significantly fewer articles in latter years gave a monocausal explanation of suicide, used sensational language or described in detail any suicide method. That said, fewer than one-third of articles in the final year included educational content about suicide, help-seeking information, or quotes from suicide experts. Reporting of suicide during the COVID-19 pandemic showed some positive improvements compared to pre-pandemic reporting, but these were not sustained post-pandemic. Conclusions Fidelity to responsible reporting of suicide guidelines improved over the four-year period, especially recommendations concerning putatively helpful content. However there remains room for improvement regarding inclusion of putatively protective content such as including help-seeking information and educating the public about suicide. As such, further educational outreach to journalists is needed to encourage greater inclusion of protective content, while avoiding harmful content. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».