Systematic research reviews and their subset, meta-analyses, seem to be accounting for a growing share of the suicide research literature. While I find them very useful I wonder if they are being used appropriately. Certainly they may be found in every field including so-called "hard sciences." However, suicidology is a comparative new field of empirical study and may still be feeling its way methodologically. Some of its most prominent methods (e.g., psychological autopsies) may warrant further critical examination. While many meta-reviews identify potential problems and areas of bias in the report at hand there may be a need to take a critical overall look at the role of these approaches in suicide research such as the attached.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/
Good article that reminds us that complex phenomena with wide ranges of individual differences, such as suicide research, require multiple methods, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, and subgroup and individual analyses with a range of statistical procedures and tools. We could use a good dose of neurological research approaches and results as we look to potential reasons and prevention strategies for a range of age groups, gender, and other known factors related to suicidal ideation ad actual attempts -- successful or not.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology