Search

Many western countries have experienced increased rates of youth suicide over recent years. This has been an issue of particular concern in New Zealand, since it had the highest rate of youth suicide among OECD countries in the mid-1990s. However, while attention is drawn to the now declining youth suicide rate by politicians and policy-makers, what is obscured is a cohort effect. In this paper we will argue that a cohort effect is clearly visible; suicide rates among 15-24 year olds came to the fore in the mid-1980s, peaking 10 years later, and were displaced by that among 25-35 year olds by the late-1990s. Further, this century has been characterised by the rise of suicide rates among 35-44 year olds. This effect correlates with a dramatic downturn in the New Zealand economy in a five-year period bracketing 1970. We argue for an increased focus on social and economic factors underlying suicide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: (1) To examine whether the willingness of people to socialize with adolescents with brain injury is influenced by gender, visibility of injury and/or knowing how to interact with people with brain injury; and (2) To consider two models: the responsibility model (attributions about the cause of a condition) and the danger appraisal model (perceptions of dangerousness due to anger/aggression) for their effect on willingness to socialize and to understand how these perceptions lead to avoidant behaviour. Method and procedures: Participants were recruited either by personal approach or via Facebook advertising and completed a survey after reading a brief vignette and seeing a photo of an adolescent male or female, with or without a head scar. Vignettes for some participants were varied to represent perceptions of responsibility and dangerousness Main outcomes and results: ANOVAs and structural equation modelling revealed that participants were more willing to socialize with the adolescents with a scar than with no scar. Knowledge about how to interact with survivors impacted willingness to socialize, but familiarity did not. The full danger appraisal model was supported, but only some aspects of the responsibility model were supported. Conclusion: The results provide useful information for rehabilitation health professionals working with survivors of brain injury. The implications of these findings are discussed with regards to assisting adolescents’ re-entry into society post-injury. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Primary objective: To determine how visible markers of brain injury interact with people's knowledge about brain injury to influence people's attributions for undesirable behaviours of a person with brain injury. Research design, method and procedures: Scenarios in Experiment 1 ( n = 98) and Experiment 2 ( n = 148) described an adolescent pictured with or without a head scar, who showed four behavioural changes. Participants rated two causal attributions for each behaviour: brain injury and adolescence. Experiment 1 varied information that the adolescent had a brain injury and Experiment 2 assessed participants' familiarity with brain injury. Main outcomes and results: The presence of a head scar increased attributions to brain injury. In Experiment 1, participants not informed about the brain injury attributed the behaviours more to adolescence than to brain injury than informed participants. In Experiment 2, in the 'no scar' condition participants familiar with brain injury attributed the behaviours more to brain injury than those who were not. Conclusion: Markers of brain injury interact with people's knowledge about brain injury in shaping people's attributions for the behaviour of persons with brain injury. When people attribute sequelae of the brain injury to other causes, this may hinder appropriate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]