Comparison of suicide in people aged 65-74 and 75+ by gender in England and Wales and the major Western countries 1979-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The factors most strongly associated with suicide are age and gender--more men than women, and, more people over 65 kill themselves. As a number of Governments have targets to reduce suicide levels we compare elderly suicide rates over a 20-year period in England and Wales. And the major Western countries focusing upon age and gender. METHOD: WHO mortality data were used to calculate three-year average General Population Suicide Rates (GPSR) for 1979-1981 to 1997-1999 and rates of people aged 65-74 and 75+ suicide by gender to provide ratios of change and a statistical comparison of England and Wales and the Major Western countries over the period. RESULTS: Male GSPR: '65-74' suicide ratios fell significantly in six countries and in three for the '75+'. Female GSPR: '65-74' suicide ratios fell in every country except Spain. Proportionately, there were more suicides in the over 65s in countries with an 'extended family' tradition, Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Japan, than in the five 'secular' countries. England and Wales male '65-74' suicide fell significantly more than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Netherlands and the USA, and did significantly better than the other countries for all female senior citizen suicides. CONCLUSION: Suicide of the over-65s has improved in seven countries, especially in England and Wales, who had the greatest proportional reduction, which reflects well upon the psycho-geriatric and community services. However, in all countries, male 65-74 rates did not match the female out so extra efforts are needed to improve male rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".