ArticleBMJ open2023
Media coverage and speculation about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide: a content analysis of UK news.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suicide Prevention as a Pillar of Sustainable Mental Health: A Focused Comparative Narrative Review of the Republic of Cyprus and Selected European Countries in the Post-COVID-19 Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Suicide prevented or delayed? Suicide rates during North Carolina's stay-at-home order.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting negative attitudes towards suicide in social media texts: prediction model development and validation study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Police-led real-time surveillance system for suspected suicides in Great Britain.BMJ mental health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much concern and speculation about rises in suicide rates, despite evidence that suicides did not in fact increase in the first year of the pandemic in most countries with real-time suicide data. This public narrative is potentially harmful, as well as misleading, and is likely to be perpetuated by sensational news coverage.
methodUsing a bespoke database, we analysed the quality and content of print and online UK news (including opinion pieces) on the impact of COVID-19 on suicidality, based on adherence to international recommendations. χ
resultsWe identified 372 stories about COVID-19 and suicidality in online and print news between the first UK lockdown (March 2020) and May 2021 (when restrictions were significantly eased in the UK). Throughout this period, over a third of articles (39.2%) and headlines (41.4%) claimed or predicted a rise in suicide, often attributed to feelings of entrapment and poor mental health (especially among young people) and fueled by expert commentary and speculation. Almost a third of reports were rated as being of negative quality (116, 31.2%), and at least half included no signposting to help and support. However, reporting improved in phases of less stringent COVID-19 restrictions and over time, with later articles and headlines including fewer negative statements and predictions about rises in suicides, and greater reliance on academic evidence.
conclusionsAs the longer-term consequences of the pandemic develop, and other national and global events unfold, it is increasingly important that the media, and the wider community of experts shaping its narratives, strive for a positive and evidence-informed approach to news coverage of suicide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.