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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |