The social construction of gender and its influence on suicide: a review of the literature

In developed Western societies, it is well known that more men than women commit suicide each year, whereas women are more likely to be involved in suicide attempts. Despite these differences, public policies in the West have tended to treat gender as a descriptive, rather than causal, factor in suicidal behaviours. However, differences between socially constructed masculinities and femininities may impact on suicide-related behaviours and help explain gender differences in both behaviours and outcome. This literature review considers suicide through the lens of gender, drawing on a social constructionist perspective to explain differences between women and men in suicidal behaviour. In particular it focuses on individual and life history factors, social and community variables and living and working conditions. It will be argued that suicide-related behaviours, like health-behaviours more generally, are influenced by (and influence) demonstrations of masculinities and femininities. Finally, it will explore how a gendered view of suicidal behaviour will be of potential benefit to public health policies aimed at reducing gender differences in suicidal behaviour

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses

Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics. © 202