Jane Pirkis1, Dianne Currier1, Lay San Too1, Marc Bryant2, Sara Bartlett2, Mark Sinyor3, Matthew J Spittal1. 1. Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Everymind, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
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.
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.
Authors: Ruth Benson; Jan Rigby; Christopher Brunsdon; Grace Cully; Lay San Too; Ella Arensman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Thomas Niederkrotenthaler; Marlies Braun; Jane Pirkis; Benedikt Till; Steven Stack; Mark Sinyor; Ulrich S Tran; Martin Voracek; Qijin Cheng; Florian Arendt; Sebastian Scherr; Paul S F Yip; Matthew J Spittal Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-03-18