Suicides in Australia following media reports of the death of Robin Williams

J. Pirkis, D. Currier, L. Too, Marc Bryant, Sara Bartlett, M. Sinyor, M. Spittal
{"title":"Suicides in Australia following media reports of the death of Robin Williams","authors":"J. Pirkis, D. Currier, L. Too, Marc Bryant, Sara Bartlett, M. Sinyor, M. Spittal","doi":"10.1177/0004867419888297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study assessed the extent to which local reporting of Robin Williams’ suicide (on 11 August 2014) was associated with suicide in Australia. It followed several studies in the United States which showed that there were significant increases in suicide following media reports of Williams’ death and that those media reports were less than optimal in terms of adherence to best-practice guidelines. In a previous study, we demonstrated that Australian media reports of Williams’ suicide were largely adherent with our Mindframe guidelines on responsible reporting of suicide, so we speculated that there would be no increase in suicide following the reporting of Williams’ suicide in Australia. Method: We extracted data on Australian suicides from the National Coroners Information System for the period 2001 to 2016. We conducted interrupted time series regression analyses to determine whether there were changes in suicides in the 5-month period immediately following Williams’ suicide. Results: Our hypothesis that there would be no increase in suicides in Australia following Williams’ highly publicised suicide was not supported. There was an 11% increase in suicides in the 5-month period following Williams’ death, largely accounted for by men aged 30–64 and by people who died by hanging (the method Williams used). Conclusion: It may be that Australians were exposed to reports that contravened safe reporting recommendations, particularly via overseas media or social media, and/or that some Australian reports may have had unhelpful overarching narratives, despite largely adhering to the Mindframe guidelines. The Mindframe guidelines constitute international best practice but consideration should be given to whether certain recommendations within them should be further reinforced and whether more nuanced information about how stories should be framed could be provided. Future revision and augmentation of the Mindframe guidelines should, as always, involve media professionals.","PeriodicalId":8576,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867419888297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed the extent to which local reporting of Robin Williams’ suicide (on 11 August 2014) was associated with suicide in Australia. It followed several studies in the United States which showed that there were significant increases in suicide following media reports of Williams’ death and that those media reports were less than optimal in terms of adherence to best-practice guidelines. In a previous study, we demonstrated that Australian media reports of Williams’ suicide were largely adherent with our Mindframe guidelines on responsible reporting of suicide, so we speculated that there would be no increase in suicide following the reporting of Williams’ suicide in Australia. Method: We extracted data on Australian suicides from the National Coroners Information System for the period 2001 to 2016. We conducted interrupted time series regression analyses to determine whether there were changes in suicides in the 5-month period immediately following Williams’ suicide. Results: Our hypothesis that there would be no increase in suicides in Australia following Williams’ highly publicised suicide was not supported. There was an 11% increase in suicides in the 5-month period following Williams’ death, largely accounted for by men aged 30–64 and by people who died by hanging (the method Williams used). Conclusion: It may be that Australians were exposed to reports that contravened safe reporting recommendations, particularly via overseas media or social media, and/or that some Australian reports may have had unhelpful overarching narratives, despite largely adhering to the Mindframe guidelines. The Mindframe guidelines constitute international best practice but consideration should be given to whether certain recommendations within them should be further reinforced and whether more nuanced information about how stories should be framed could be provided. Future revision and augmentation of the Mindframe guidelines should, as always, involve media professionals.
媒体报道罗宾·威廉姆斯死亡后,澳大利亚出现自杀事件
目的:本研究评估了Robin Williams自杀(2014年8月11日)的当地报道与澳大利亚自杀的关联程度。在此之前,美国的几项研究表明,在媒体报道威廉姆斯死亡后,自杀率显著上升,而这些媒体报道在遵守最佳做法准则方面不够理想。在之前的一项研究中,我们证明了澳大利亚媒体对Williams自杀的报道在很大程度上符合我们关于负责任的自杀报道的Mindframe准则,因此我们推测,在澳大利亚报道Williams自杀后,自杀人数不会增加。方法:我们从国家验尸官信息系统中提取了2001年至2016年期间澳大利亚自杀事件的数据。我们进行了中断时间序列回归分析,以确定在威廉姆斯自杀后的5个月内自杀率是否有变化。结果:我们的假设,即在威廉姆斯的自杀事件被高度宣传后,澳大利亚的自杀率不会上升,这一假设没有得到支持。在威廉姆斯去世后的5个月里,自杀人数增加了11%,其中大部分是30-64岁的男性和上吊(威廉姆斯使用的方法)。结论:可能是澳大利亚人接触到的报告违反了安全报告建议,特别是通过海外媒体或社交媒体,和/或一些澳大利亚报告可能有无益的总体叙述,尽管在很大程度上遵守了Mindframe指南。《思维框架指南》构成了国际最佳实践,但应考虑是否应进一步加强其中的某些建议,以及是否可以提供关于如何构建故事的更细致的信息。今后对心智框架准则的修订和扩充应一如既往地涉及媒体专业人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信