Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41553419›Full record

ReviewAging clinical and experimental research2026

Ageism in suicide rates: any difference between Anglo-Saxon and Latin countries?

Diego De Leo, Mujde Altin, Lorenza Entilli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Diego De LeoAustralian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. d.deleo@griffith.edu.au.
Mujde AltinDe Leo Fund, Padova PD, Italy.
Lorenza EntilliDe Leo Fund, Padova PD, Italy. entilli.lorenza.2@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThe link between ageism, mental health, and suicide has been highlighted in previous research. This article examines the possible impact of ageism on to the enduring cross-switches observed by older adults' population from different Western countries.

methodsWe reviewed existing literature in the field to understand how ageism manifests across cultures. Furthermore, we explored to what extent the concept is recognized in different countries and what initiatives are currently being taken.

resultsIn Latin-origin countries, many older people live alone, with children who have moved away or emigrated, and have less active social networks. By comparison, Anglo-Saxon countries provide more community services to support older adults, including programs against loneliness. The stigma attached to mental health is counteracted by active public campaigns and more accessible services. Moreover, many people in Latin countries live with low pensions and economic uncertainty, especially if alone or widowed. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, more robust pension systems and forms of social assistance exist, reducing financial stress.

conclusionsBased on the available literature, it doesn't seem that ageism may justify the higher number of suicides in old age in countries such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal. At most, it can partly explain the higher rates observed by contributing to creating a climate of invisibility, exclusion and mistrust that can be fertile ground for psychological suffering. Thus, intervening against ageism could not only be seen as an ethical act, but also a concrete form of suicide prevention.

Indexed as

AgeismSuicideAgedHumansMental HealthAgeismCultural factorsLatin countriesSuicide trendsWestern countries

Identifiers

PMID41553419
PMCPMC12852225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.