On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:02:02 -0700, Stephen Black wrote: >There's a grim but interesting study of suicide rates on the Bloor >Viaduct in Toronto before and after the placement of a suicide >prevention barrier. Lots of statistics to crunch. > >Full text of the article available at: > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/341/jul06_1/c2884 > >As is characteristic of natural experiments, the results do not >lead to any conclusion with confidence. Don't miss the >thoughtful commentary contributed by Isaac Sakinofsky as a >rapid response at > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/341/jul06_1/c2884#238506 )
I have to admit that initially I thought that I knew what Stpehen was talking about above, that is, the suicide rate on the Bloor St bridge, but after looking at the abstract I don't know what his point is. The critical statement in the abstract on this point is: |A mean of 9.3 suicides occurred annually at Bloor Street Viaduct |before the barrier and none after the barrier (P<0.01). So, the barrier appears to have been effective in stopping suicides from the Bloor St bridge. Overall, the suicide rate in Toronto remained the same, indicating that people who wanted to commit suicide used different means to achieve that end. I'm not sure what it is that Stephen lacks confidence in but it does suggest that people might be a little more specific in their posts. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3586 or send a blank email to leave-3586-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
