MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011318213 · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8211-1

The experiences of people bereaved by suicide regarding the press reporting of the death: qualitative study

2020· article· en· W3011318213 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philip Gregory, Fiona Stevenson, Michael King, David Osborn, Alexandra Pitman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilRoyal Veterinary CollegeUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustQueen's UniversityCardiff Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of WorcesterUniversity of WestminsterQueen's University BelfastCranfield UniversityUniversity of CumbriaUlster UniversityUniversity of DundeeUniversity of OxfordUniversity of SouthamptonKing's College LondonGuarantors of BrainUniversity of ChesterUniversity of GreenwichHeriot-Watt UniversityBishop Grosseteste UniversityDe Montfort UniversityQueen Margaret UniversityUniversity of BedfordshireLiverpool John Moores UniversityStaffordshire UniversityCardiff UniversityBournemouth UniversityUniversity of LeedsLondon Metropolitan UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsThematic analysisMedicineSuicide preventionDistressQualitative researchBiostatisticsPoison controlPsychiatryPublic healthNursingClinical psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Media guidelines on suicide reporting of suicide have two purposes: to prevent further suicides, and to minimise distress to the bereaved, who are themselves at increased risk of suicide. We aimed to describe the subjective experiences of people bereaved by suicide regarding media reporting of the suicide of their friend or relative. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of staff and students aged 18-40 at 37 United Kingdom higher educational institutions in 2010 to recruit adults who had experienced bereavement by the suicide of a close contact. We analysed free-text responses to a question probing experiences of the press after the suicide, using thematic analysis to identify key themes. RESULTS: We analysed responses from 140 eligible respondents, and identified 3 main themes: value placed on respecting the privacy or wishes of the bereaved; respect accorded to the deceased; and the role of the press in promoting suicide prevention messages. Many respondents described negative experiences of the press, with sub-themes capturing distressing experiences relating to perceptions of journalists' intrusive behaviour, failure to consult appropriately with the bereaved, journalists releasing private information, negatively misrepresenting the deceased, and breaching the anonymity of the deceased or bereaved. We identified considerable variation in people's views over acceptable levels of detail reported in the press, and in some cases objections were in relation to journalists following media guidelines. These divergent views illustrate the tensions between the twin purposes of media guidelines: to prevent further suicides, and to protect the bereaved. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our British sample provide journalists with personal perspectives from bereaved relatives on the impact of media intrusion, speculation, and misrepresentation, and an insight into disparate views on the nature of information relatives feel comfortable disclosing. These findings suggest a need for journalists' training to include exposure to such views, to heighten awareness of potentially distressing effects and the nuances of bereaved people's preferences. This should aim to encourage journalists to consult with bereaved relatives more sensitively, whilst also remaining mindful of media guidelines on the reporting of suicide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.217
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207