Urban–rural inequalities in suicide mortality : a comparison of urbanicity indicators

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHelbich, M.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorBluml, V.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDe Jong, T.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorPlener, P. L.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorKwan, M. P.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorKapusta, N. D.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-06T05:43:56Z
dc.date.available2017-11-06T05:43:56Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-30
dc.date.updated2017-11-05T04:29:06Z
dc.descriptionCITATION: Helbich, M., et al. 2017. Urban–rural inequalities in suicide mortality : a comparison of urbanicity indicators. International Journal of Health Geographics, 16:39, doi:10.1186/s12942-017-0112-x.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com
dc.description.abstractBackground: Urban–rural disparities in suicide mortality have received considerable attention. Varying conceptualizations of urbanity may contribute to the conflicting findings. This ecological study on Germany assessed how and to what extent urban–rural suicide associations are affected by 14 different urban–rural indicators. Methods: Indicators were based on continuous or k-means classified population data, land-use data, planning typologies, or represented population-based accessibility indicators. Agreements between indicators were tested with correlation analyses. Spatial Bayesian Poisson regressions were estimated to examine urban–rural suicide associations while adjusting for risk and protective factors. Results: Urban–rural differences in suicide rates per 100,000 persons were found irrespective of the indicator. Strong and significant correlation was observed between different urban–rural indicators. Although the effect sign consistently referred to a reduced risk in urban areas, statistical significance was not universally confirmed by all regressions. Goodness-of-fit statistics suggested that the population potential score performs best, and that population density is the second best indicator of urbanicity. Numerical indicators are favored over classified ones. Regional planning typologies are not supported. Conclusions: The strength of suicide urban–rural associations varies with respect to the applied indicator of urbanicity. Future studies that put urban–rural inequalities central are recommended to apply either unclassified population potentials or population density indicators, but sensitivity analyses are advised.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttps://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12942-017-0112-x
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.format.extent12 pages ; illustrations
dc.identifier.citationHelbich, M., et al. 2017. Urban–rural inequalities in suicide mortality : a comparison of urbanicity indicators. International Journal of Health Geographics, 16:39, doi:10.1186/s12942-017-0112-x
dc.identifier.issn1476-072X (online)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1186/s12942-017-0112-x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/102447
dc.language.isoen_ZA
dc.publisherBiomed Central
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright
dc.subjectSuicide -- Mortality -- Germanyen_ZA
dc.subjectSuicide -- Anthropological aspects -- Germanyen_ZA
dc.subjectSuicide -- Economic conditions -- Germanyen_ZA
dc.subjectSpatial inequalities -- Germanyen_ZA
dc.subjectSocio-economic status -- Germanyen_ZA
dc.titleUrban–rural inequalities in suicide mortality : a comparison of urbanicity indicatorsen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
helbich_urban_2016.pdf
Size:
4.25 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.95 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Articles (Logistics)