Did the Great Recession increase suicides in the USA? Evidence from an Interrupted Time Series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeResearch suggests that the Great Recession of 2007–2009 led to nearly 5000 excess suicides in the United States. However, prior work has not accounted for seasonal patterning and unique suicide trends by age and gender.MethodsWe calculated monthly suicide rates from 1999 to 2013 for men and women aged 15 and above. Suicide rates before the Great Recession were used to predict the rate during and after the Great Recession. Death rates for each age-gender group were modeled using Poisson regression with robust variance, accounting for seasonal and nonlinear suicide trajectories.ResultsThere were 56,658 suicide deaths during the Great Recession. Age- and gender-specific suicide trends before the recession demonstrated clear seasonal and nonlinear trajectories. Our models predicted 57,140 expected suicide deaths, leading to 482 fewer observed than expected suicides (95% confidence interval −2079, 943).ConclusionsWe found little evidence to suggest that the Great Recession interrupted existing trajectories of suicide rates. Suicide rates were already increasing before the Great Recession for middle-aged men and women. Future studies estimating the impact of recessions on suicide should account for the diverse and unique suicide trajectories of different social groups.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".