Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a major global health challenge. At the time of writing, over 11.6 million people around the world had been registered as infected and 538,000 had died (Worldometers, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020). Public health responses to COVID-19 need to balance direct efforts to control the disease and its impact on health systems, infected people, and their families with the impacts from associated mitigating interventions. Such impacts include social isolation, school closure, health service disruption stemming from reconfiguring health systems, and diminished economic activity. The primary focus of both the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) has been on addressing COVID-19 as a physical health crisis, but the need to strengthen mental health action, including suicide prevention, is increasingly recognized, as is the need for mental health research to be an integral part of the recovery plan (UN, 2020a). The impacts of the pandemic on physical and mental health will unfold differently over time and will vary depending on the duration and fluctuating intensity of the disease. Research is needed to help ensure that decision-making regarding all aspects of health, including mental health (Holmes et al., 2020), is informed by the best quality data at each stage of the pandemic. The pandemic poses a prolonged and unique challenge to public mental health, with major implications for suicide and suicide prevention (Gunnell et al., 2020; Reger, Stanley, & Joiner, 2020). A rise in suicide deaths in the wake of the pandemic is not inevitable. There is consensus, however, that the mitigation of risk will be contingent upon a proactive and effective response involving collaborative work between the state, NGOs, academia, and local governments and coordinated leadership across government ministries, including health, education, security, social services, welfare, and finance. Countries have responded in different ways to the pandemic, effectively creating a series of natural experiments. Thus, regions of the world affected later in the pandemic can draw on lessons from countries, such as China and Italy, affected in its early phase. Likewise, lessons learned early in the pandemic (e.g., on the impact of lockdown and physical distancing measures) can be used to inform responses to any future surges in the incidence of COVID-19. Although there are important parallels between countries in the course of the pandemic, some stressors, responses, and priorities are likely to differ between high- and low–middle-income countries and between cultures and regions. As COVID-19 appears to be disproportionately affecting Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities, the response – and suicide prevention research carried out to inform the response – needs to be sufficiently granular and account for the complexity of risks in these groups (O'Connor et al., 2020). Throughout this editorial, when we refer to suicide and suicidal behavior, we mean to include both fatal and nonfatal suicidal behaviors and self-harm.

Highlights

  • The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a major global health challenge

  • Publications relevant to the COVID-19 response have largely come from literature reviews, small selective surveys or case reports, often using indirect measures of suicide risk or from modeling approaches to predict the impact of the pandemic

  • While a number of news stories from Japan, New Zealand, and Germany report a decrease in suicides in the period around the time of lockdown (Deutsche Welle, 2020; New Zealand Herald, 2020; The Guardian, 2020), these are all based on preliminary data/anecdotal reports and unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed publications

Read more

Summary

Research considerations

The COVID-19 suicide research response should be truly multidisciplinary. This will foster research that addresses the different aspects and layers of risk and resilience relating to the health consequences of COVID-19, including suicide and suicidal behavior. One solution is the fast-track review processes for selected papers – these were already in place before COVID-19, but have been extended and adopted by more journals since the beginning of the outbreak Another solution is open science publication models that involve on-line publication of articles while they await peer review, there is a danger of low-quality research findings being disseminated and acted upon precipitously, without scrutiny of their validity (Armstrong, 2020). The ICSPRC assessment of the risks posed by the pandemic and suggested responses to mitigate these were summarized in a Lancet Psychiatry commentary published in April 2020 (Gunnell et al, 2020) Building on this initiative, the collaborative network has been extended to include suicide researchers from a wider range of countries (including countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South America), with skills ranging from population health to biological psychiatry and incorporating expertise in quantitative and qualitative methods, together with ethics. A focus on intermediate or proxy outcomes (e.g., self-reported suicidal ideation) is sometimes necessary but these have a questionable relationship to suicidal behav-

General population
Risk factors
Protective factors
New factors
Access to the means
Social media use and other online activity
Frontline care workers
Mental health problems
Young people
Older people
Workplaces and educational institutions
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.