You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Global health
Protocol
International Study of Definitions of English-Language Terms for Suicidal Behaviours: protocol of an opinion survey
  1. Benjamin Goodfellow1,2,
  2. Kairi Kõlves1,
  3. Diego De Leo1,
  4. Morton Silverman3,
  5. Alan Berman4,
  6. John Mann5,
  7. Ella Arensman6,
  8. Keith Hawton7,
  9. Michael Phillips8,
  10. Lakshmi Vijayakumar9
  1. 1Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Department of Psychiatry, Centre Hospitalier Albert Bousquet, Nouméa, New Caledonia
  3. 3Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
  4. 4Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  5. 5Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, USA
  6. 6National Suicide Research Foundation, School of Public Health, Cork, Ireland
  7. 7Psychiatry, Centre for Suicide Research, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  8. 8Suicide Research and Prevention Center, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai, China
  9. 9Department of Psychiatry, Voluntary Heath Services, Chennai, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin Goodfellow; b.goodfellow{at}chs.nc

Abstract

Introduction The objective of present paper is to outline the methodology of the International Study of Definitions of English-Language Terms for Suicidal Behaviours (ISDELTSB). The aim of the study is to survey existing English language terms and definitions used around the world for suicidal behaviour.

Methods and analysis The ISDELTSB is a worldwide survey based on one ‘designated expert’ per each WHO-registered country. ‘Experts’ were contacted through the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), the World Psychiatric Association and the World Organization of Family Doctors. Each individual was sent an invitation to participate and a link to an online questionnaire. A comparison sample was created by inviting all IASP members to respond to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess respondents’ preferences about a particular set of terms and definitions by using the four major criteria of the definition of suicide identified in the literature (outcome, intent, knowledge and agency). The questionnaire used a multiple-choice question format. Participants were asked to choose one term in the list for each of the proposed definitions. Statements and definitions in the questionnaire were elaborated using the four main features of the definition of suicide, starting by the definitions and terms for which there is already a certain degree of consensus and then progressing to definitions and terms less agreed on.

Ethics and dissemination The study protocol obtained approval of Griffith University’s Ethics Committee (ethics reference number 2017/601) and in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Respondents are asked if they accept to be personally acknowledged in any output originating from this study, and if so to provide their full name, title and affiliations. If respondents do not accept, they are informed that the conduct of this research respects Griffith University’s Privacy Plan and that identified personal information is confidential and that anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. As detailed in the questionnaire cover letter, by answering the online or paper version of the questionnaire, respondents express their consent to participate. Dissemination of results will be done through a peer-reviewed journal article publication. This study aims to map the international use of definitions and terms for suicidal behaviour and ideation and favour the future use of an internationally shared set of terms and definitions. This will hopefully avoid undue duplication of efforts and reliably permit meta-analysis of data produced in different countries.

  • suicide
  • suicidal behavior
  • suicidal ideation
  • definitions
  • terms

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025770

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors BG helped design the study, designed the questionnaire, drafted and wrote the manuscript. KK helped design the study, helped design and critically reviewed the questionnaire, and critically reviewed the manuscript. DDL originated the study idea and design, helped design and critically reviewed the questionnaire, and critically reviewed the manuscript. MS, AB, JM, EA, KH, MP and LV reviewed the questionnaire and critically reviewed the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.