Suicide among physicians: what do we know about it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The prevalence of mental illness has increased worldwide over the past few years. At the same time, and even in the sense, there is also an increase in suicide rates with special incidence in certain risk groups, among which health professionals stand out. In this particular group, physicians seem to represent a class particularly vulnerable by the stress and demand associated with it, but also by access and knowledge about potentially lethal means. For this very part, they have a higher risk of suicide than the general population. Objectives This paper aims to better understand the phenomenon of suicide among physicians and identify which medical specialties are most vulnerable. Methods Bibliographic research in the Pubmed® database using the terms “suicide and physicians”. Results The data obtained from the scientific literature consulted indicate that physicians have a higher risk of suicide than the general population, with greater emphasis on females who have higher rates compared to males. Work factors that translate into higher levels of demand and stress combined with easy access and knowledge about the use of potentially lethal means seem to contribute very significantly to this phenomenon. Perfectionist personality traits with a high sense of responsibility and duty are also important characteristics that place these professionals in a position of greater vulnerability. With regard to the different medical specialties, anesthesiology, psychiatry and general and family medicine are the ones with higher suicide rates among the medical class. Conclusions The risk of suicide, although admittedly high in the medical class, is not homogeneous among different countries, being naturally influenced by the satisfaction/gratification obtained in the performance of their profession. In this sense, countries such as Switzerland and Canada show higher levels of professional satisfaction. In the opposite direction, dissatisfaction in the exercise of clinical activity is associated with higher levels of fatigue and burnout. Medical women, due to the need to combine the responsibility of family tasks with professional responsibility, are at greater risk. In this sense, it is necessary to develop strategies that are more appropriate for the prevention and early identification of suicide risk situations that can be experienced not only by improving working conditions but also by better addressing professionals suffering from mental disorders. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | medium |
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".