| Literature DB >> 29349124 |
João Pereira Dos Santos1,2, Mariana Tavares1, Pedro Pita Barros1,3.
Abstract
Suicides are a major concern for public health first and foremost because they are an avoidable cause of death. Moreover, they can be an indicator of self-reported emotional satisfaction and a good marker of overall well-being. In this study we examine how different economic and social aspects affected Portuguese suicide rates for more than one hundred years (1910-2013). We place this exercise in the specific historical context of the XX and early XXI century in Portugal, emphasizing the role of economic recessions and expansions. Controlling for aspects like wars, health care availability, political instability, and demographic changes, we find a strong association between a decline in the growth rate of real output and an increase in suicide rates for the whole population. In this regard, while male suicide rates are non-negligibly influenced by economic downturns, female suicide rates are in general more responsive to a more open political and economic environment. Our results are robust if we consider the mid-term cyclical relationship. Our findings advocate that, during recessions, public health responses should be seen as a crucial component of suicide prevention.Entities:
Keywords: Austerity; Crisis; Marriage; Mental health; Portugal; Suicide rates
Year: 2016 PMID: 29349124 PMCID: PMC5757999 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2015.11.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SSM Popul Health ISSN: 2352-8273
Fig. 1Suicide and GDP growth rates in Portugal (1910–2013). (Source: own construction, data from INE and Banco de Portugal).
Fig. 2Suicide rates in Portugal. (Source: own construction, data from INE).
Dickey–Fuller tests.
| No trend, no constant | 0.0163 | |
| No trend, no constant | 0.0213 | |
| No trend, no constant | 0.0003 | |
| With trend | 1 | |
| No trend, no constant | 0 | |
| With constant | 0.0069 | |
| With trend | 0.0034 | |
| No trend, no constant | 0 | |
| With constant | 0.9096 | |
| No trend, no constant | 0 |
Fig. 3GDP growth rate in Portugal. (Source: own construction, data from Banco de Portugal).
Fig. A2Controls time series lines (Source: own construction).
Descriptive statistics.
| Dependent variables | |||
| 8.508 | 1.91 | Number of suicides per 100.000 | |
| 13.2268 | 3.1399 | ||
| 4.157 | 0.9073 | ||
| Output measures | |||
| 0.1115 | 0.133 | GDP in 1958 constant prices until 1952 and in 2001 onwards | |
| 3.46e−10 | 0.2453 | ||
| Controls | |||
| −0.0372 | 0.0972 | ||
| −0.0069 | 0.074 | ||
| 0.8654 | 1.5395 | ||
Detailed data sources.
| Number of suicides, total and per gender | 1902–2000, 1955–2003, 2008–2013 | ||
| WHO Mortality Database | |||
| Population, total and per gender | EUROSTAT | ||
| GDP in 1958 constant prices | 2004–2006 | ||
| 1910–1952 | |||
| GDP in 2001 constant prices | 1953–2013 | ||
| Infant mortality | 1910–2000 | ||
| Linear adjustment | |||
| INE | |||
| Number of marriages | 1911, 1912 | ||
| 2001–2013 | |||
| Number of governments | INE | 1910–2000 | |
| 2001–2013 | |||
| 1910–2001 |
Baseline model.
| 0.768 | 0.769 | 0.716 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | 0.715 | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 0.551 | |
| −1.577 | −1.565 | −1.807 | −3.073 | −0.744 | |
| 1.162 | 1.135 | 1.051 | 2.175 | 0.429 | |
| – | −2.322 | −3.093 | −5.138 | −1.305 | |
| – | 0.446 | 0.931 | 2.360 | −0.447 | |
| – | −0.052 | −0.176 | −0.135 | −0.202 | |
| – | – | 0.166 | 0.273 | 0.197 | |
| – | – | −0.977 | −1.539 | −0.383 | |
| – | – | 0.270 | 0.305 | 0.414 | |
| – | – | −0.057 | 0.029 | −0.163 | |
| – | – | 0.212 | 0.450 | 0.006 | |
| – | – | −0.368 | −0.323 | −0.572 | |
| – | – | 0.045 | 0.065 | 0.015 | |
| 2.250 | 2.232 | 2.646 | 4.106 | 2.030 | |
| 102 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 102 | |
| 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.52 | |
| 0.7442 | 0.7430 | 0.5117 | 0.2103 | 0.3923 |
Note: The null hypothesis in the Breush–Godfrey test is “no serial correlation”.
p<0.01.
p<0.05.
p<0.1.
Fig. 4Cyclical Portuguese GDP. (Source: own construction, data from Banco de Portugal).
HP filter model.
| 0.797 | 0.793 | 0.644 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | 0.636 | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 0.518 | |
| −0.056 | −0.158 | −1.411 | −2.330 | −0.692 | |
| −0.405 | −0.405 | – | – | – | |
| – | −2.455 | −3.558 | −6.027 | −1.443 | |
| – | 0.352 | 0.528 | 1.941 | −0.821 | |
| – | −0.052 | – | – | – | |
| – | – | 0.315 | 0.366 | 0.346 | |
| – | – | −1.725 | −2.841 | −0.727 | |
| – | – | −0.063 | −0.268 | 0.241 | |
| – | – | −0.501 | −0.669 | −0.380 | |
| – | – | 0.609 | 1.151 | 0.129 | |
| – | – | −0.223 | 0.034 | −0.573 | |
| – | – | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.001 | |
| 1.816 | 1.845 | 2.968 | 4.625 | 2.071 | |
| 103 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 102 | |
| 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.52 | |
| 0.6771 | 0.7696 | 0.5723 | 0.2868 | 0.3241 |
Note: The null hypothesis in the Breush–Godfrey test is “no serial correlation”.
p<0.01.
p<0.05.
p<0.1.
Lagged analysis – cyclical Portuguese GDP.
| Stot | Stot | Stot | Smale | Sfemale | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| L_Stot | 0.805 | 0.803 | 0.668 | ||
| L_Smale | 0.665 | ||||
| L_Sfemale | 0.526 | ||||
| Lag cyclical component | 0.276 | 0.176 | −0.847 | −1.340 | −0.486 |
| Lag[Change_GDP | −0.797 | −0.764 | |||
| Marriage growth rate | −2.299 | −3.183 | −5.382 | −1.288 | |
| Infant mortality growth rate | 0.444 | 0.401 | 1.750 | −0.893 | |
| Change_IMRIMR | −0.059 | ||||
| NHS | 0.252 | 0.269 | 0.320 | ||
| World War I | −1.254 | −2.015 | −0.538 | ||
| World War II | −0.025 | −0.186 | 0.246 | ||
| Colonial War | −0.397 | −0.494 | −0.346 | ||
| Dictatorship | 0.556 | 1.043 | 0.125 | ||
| EU | −0.186 | 0.078 | −0.550 | ||
| No of Governments | −0.025 | −0.048 | −0.017 | ||
| _cons | 1.755 | 1.763 | 2.790 | 4.285 | 2.046 |
| 103 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 102 | |
| 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.51 | |
p<0.01.
p<0.05.
p<0.1.
Ranking among 20 selected countries based on their overall suicide rates.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
| 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | |
| 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | |
| 3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 15 | 12 | 9 | 13 | 9 | |
| 9 | 9 | 10 | 15 | 10 | |
| 17 | 16 | 11 | 9 | 11 | |
| 11 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 12 | |
| 14 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 13 | |
| 10 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 14 | |
| 12 | 13 | 15 | 10 | 15 | |
| 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | |
| 13 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 17 | |
| 18 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 18 | |
| 20 | 20 | 19 | 17 | 19 | |
| 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Correlation matrix.
| 1.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.9675 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.7900 | 0.6114 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | |
| −0.0310 | −0.1372 | 0.2863 | 1.0 | – | – | – | |
| 0.1584 | 0.2055 | 0.0064 | −0.1037 | 1.0 | – | – | |
| 0.0109 | −0.0183 | 0.0968 | 0.1081 | 0.2645 | 1.0 | – | |
| −0.1976 | −0.1954 | −0.1747 | 0.2012 | −0.0786 | −0.1246 | 1.0 |