Cargando…

Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?

One of the most established “truths” in suicidology is that almost all (90 % or more) of those who kill themselves suffer from one or more mental disorders, and a causal link between the two is implied. Psychological autopsy (PA) studies constitute one main evidence base for this conclusion. However...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hjelmeland, Heidi, Dieserud, Gudrun, Dyregrov, Kari, Knizek, Birthe L., Leenaars, Antoon A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24563941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.584015
_version_ 1782270794349412352
author Hjelmeland, Heidi
Dieserud, Gudrun
Dyregrov, Kari
Knizek, Birthe L.
Leenaars, Antoon A.
author_facet Hjelmeland, Heidi
Dieserud, Gudrun
Dyregrov, Kari
Knizek, Birthe L.
Leenaars, Antoon A.
author_sort Hjelmeland, Heidi
collection PubMed
description One of the most established “truths” in suicidology is that almost all (90 % or more) of those who kill themselves suffer from one or more mental disorders, and a causal link between the two is implied. Psychological autopsy (PA) studies constitute one main evidence base for this conclusion. However, there has been little reflection on the reliability and validity of this method. For example, psychiatric diagnoses are assigned to people who have died by suicide by interviewing a few of the relatives and/or friends, often many years after the suicide. In this article, we scrutinize PA studies with particular focus on the diagnostic process and demonstrate that they cannot constitute a valid evidence base for a strong relationship between mental disorders and suicide. We show that most questions asked to assign a diagnosis are impossible to answer reliably by proxies, and thus, one cannot validly make conclusions. Thus, as a diagnostic tool psychological autopsies should now be abandoned. Instead, we recommend qualitative approaches focusing on the understanding of suicide beyond mental disorders, where narratives from a relatively high number of informants around each suicide are systematically analyzed in terms of the informants’ relationships with the deceased.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3662079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36620792013-05-28 Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed? Hjelmeland, Heidi Dieserud, Gudrun Dyregrov, Kari Knizek, Birthe L. Leenaars, Antoon A. Death Stud Research Article One of the most established “truths” in suicidology is that almost all (90 % or more) of those who kill themselves suffer from one or more mental disorders, and a causal link between the two is implied. Psychological autopsy (PA) studies constitute one main evidence base for this conclusion. However, there has been little reflection on the reliability and validity of this method. For example, psychiatric diagnoses are assigned to people who have died by suicide by interviewing a few of the relatives and/or friends, often many years after the suicide. In this article, we scrutinize PA studies with particular focus on the diagnostic process and demonstrate that they cannot constitute a valid evidence base for a strong relationship between mental disorders and suicide. We show that most questions asked to assign a diagnosis are impossible to answer reliably by proxies, and thus, one cannot validly make conclusions. Thus, as a diagnostic tool psychological autopsies should now be abandoned. Instead, we recommend qualitative approaches focusing on the understanding of suicide beyond mental disorders, where narratives from a relatively high number of informants around each suicide are systematically analyzed in terms of the informants’ relationships with the deceased. Taylor & Francis 2012-06-13 2012-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3662079/ /pubmed/24563941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.584015 Text en Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC http://www.informaworld.com/mpp/uploads/iopenaccess_tcs.pdf This is an open access article distributed under the Supplemental Terms and Conditions for iOpenAccess articles published in Taylor & Francis journals (http://www.informaworld.com/mpp/uploads/iopenaccess_tcs.pdf) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hjelmeland, Heidi
Dieserud, Gudrun
Dyregrov, Kari
Knizek, Birthe L.
Leenaars, Antoon A.
Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title_full Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title_fullStr Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title_full_unstemmed Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title_short Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are they Methodologically Flawed?
title_sort psychological autopsy studies as diagnostic tools: are they methodologically flawed?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24563941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.584015
work_keys_str_mv AT hjelmelandheidi psychologicalautopsystudiesasdiagnostictoolsaretheymethodologicallyflawed
AT dieserudgudrun psychologicalautopsystudiesasdiagnostictoolsaretheymethodologicallyflawed
AT dyregrovkari psychologicalautopsystudiesasdiagnostictoolsaretheymethodologicallyflawed
AT knizekbirthel psychologicalautopsystudiesasdiagnostictoolsaretheymethodologicallyflawed
AT leenaarsantoona psychologicalautopsystudiesasdiagnostictoolsaretheymethodologicallyflawed