Suicide by hanging: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide by hanging is increasing in many countries around the world and whilst efforts are being made to influence the prevention agenda to reduce the incidence, little is known regarding the contributing factors for choosing this method. The purpose of this scoping review is to summate understandings about how the epidemiology and prevention of suicide by hanging is recognised, described, and discussed in the literature, and critically appraise the extent to which the lived-experiences of survivors of suicide attempts are included. A scoping review was conducted implementing the appropriate framework and in accord with the PRIMSA-ScR extension. Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO) were searched along with the reference lists of eligible sources in January and February 2021. Thirty-six articles with a primary focus on hanging as a method of suicide and/or its prevention are included in this review, with brief thematic analysis used to summarise the featured studies. Three distinct themes emerging from the literature include: (i) Hanging suicide deaths in the community environment or person's usual place of residence, (ii) Hanging suicide deaths in controlled environments (including police cells, prisons, and inpatient units), and (iii) Medical management of near-lethal hangings. This review highlights the necessity for improving education and policy regarding the controlled environments frequently associated with hanging suicides and the medical management of near-lethal hangings, as well as the ongoing need for policy to guide and govern the responsible media portrayal of known suicides as well as fictional hangings. Finally, this review highlights the necessity for including those with lived-experiences of a suicide attempt by hanging to advance the current prevention agenda.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".