R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Open Access
The impact of pesticide suicide on the
geographic distribution of suicide in Taiwan:
a spatial analysis
Shu-Sen Chang
1,2,3, Tsung-Hsueh Lu
4,8*, Jonathan AC Sterne
1, Michael Eddleston
5, Jin-Jia Lin
4,6,7and
David Gunnell
1Abstract
Background: Pesticide self-poisoning is the most commonly used suicide method worldwide, but few studies have investigated the national epidemiology of pesticide suicide in countries where it is a major public health problem. This study aims to investigate geographic variations in pesticide suicide and their impact on the spatial distribution of suicide in Taiwan.
Methods: Smoothed standardized mortality ratios for pesticide suicide (2002-2009) were mapped across Taiwan’s 358 districts (median population aged 15 or above = 27 000), and their associations with the size of agricultural workforce were investigated using Bayesian hierarchical models.
Results: In 2002-2009 pesticide poisoning was the third most common suicide method in Taiwan, accounting for 13.6% (4913/36 110) of all suicides. Rates were higher in agricultural East and Central Taiwan and lower in major cities. Almost half (47%) of all pesticide suicides occurred in areas where only 13% of Taiwan’s population lived. The geographic distribution of overall suicides was more similar to that of pesticide suicides than non-pesticide suicides. Rural-urban differences in suicide were mostly due to pesticide suicide. Areas where a higher proportion of people worked in agriculture showed higher pesticide suicide rates (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] per standard deviation increase in the proportion of agricultural workers = 1.58, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.44-1.74) and overall suicide rates (ARR = 1.06, 95% CrI 1.03-1.10) but lower non-pesticide suicide rates (ARR = 0.91, 95% CrI 0.87-0.95). Conclusion: Easy access to pesticides appears to influence the geographic distribution of suicide in Taiwan, highlighting the potential benefits of targeted prevention strategies such as restricting access to highly toxic pesticides.
Keywords: Suicide, Pesticide, Mapping, Ecological studies, Taiwan
Background
Pesticide self-poisoning is one of the most commonly used suicide methods worldwide, accounting for 250 000-370 000 deaths every year - around one third of the world’s suicides [1]. Most of these deaths occur in rural areas of South and East Asia and many are preventable by simple measures such as legislative bans on the import and sale of the most toxic pesticides [2]. The benefits of restricting toxic pesticides on the incidence
of suicide by pesticide poisoning have been shown in some countries [3,4] and such restrictions do not appear to impact on agricultural yield [5].
Previous studies have suggested that geographic varia-tions in access to particular suicide methods may influ-ence regional suicide rates. For example, it has been shown that stricter firearm restrictions [6] and lower levels of household firearm ownership [7] are associated with lower regional firearm suicide rates in the US. In Australia, areas with fewer vehicles built prior to the country’s stringent carbon monoxide emission laws had lower rates of motor vehicle exhaust gas suicide [8]. In contrast, the geographic distribution of pesticide suicides
* Correspondence: robertlu@mail.ncku.edu.tw
4
Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2012 Chang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
in relation to markers of access to pesticides has received little attention in the research literature, although previous studies have documented substantial area variations in pesticide poisoning mortality in the US [9], Sri Lanka [10] and South Korea [11,12]. A study of Taiwan’s 23 cities/counties showed that areas with a high proportion of resident agricultural workers had a high incidence of suicide by solids or liquids poisoning [13]; although the majority of these deaths were thought to be pesticide suicides the exact proportion was unknown. In contrast, a Sri Lankan study found no eco-logical association between the size of an area’s agricul-tural population and its incidence of self-poisoning, although in areas where a high proportion of the popu-lation worked in agriculture pesticide poisonings were proportionately more frequent than in those areas with fewer agricultural workers [10]. Improved knowledge of geographic patterning of pesticide suicides may inform targeted prevention strategies.
The aim of this study was to investigate the contribu-tion made by pesticide suicides to the geographic distri-bution and rural-urban differences of suicide in Taiwan, an island nation situated off the East coast of China with a population of approximately 23 million people. The ecological associations of pesticide suicide with area characteristics were also investigated. Throughout the paper the term‘pesticide’ was used as a general term for a range of different products including insecticides, her-bicides, fungicides and rodenticides.
Methods
Suicide and population data
Suicide data for people aged 15+ years were extracted from the Taiwanese national mortality data file for years 2002-2009. Suicide by pesticide poisoning was identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X68 (suicide by pesticide poison-ing), Y18 (undetermined death by pesticide poisoning) and X48 (accident by pesticide poisoning), as the latter two cause-of-death categories contain probable‘missed’ sui-cides in Taiwan [14]. Total suisui-cides (all methods) were identified using the following ICD-10 codes: X60-X84 (sui-cide), Y10-Y34 (undetermined death), W75-W76 (accident by suffocation) and X48 (accident by pesticide poisoning) [14].‘Non-pesticide’ suicides were suicides by methods other than pesticide poisoning; these methods included i) poisoning using solid or liquid substances other than pes-ticides (X60-X65, X69, Y10-Y15, Y19); ii) poisoning using non-domestic gases (X67 and Y17); iii) hanging (X70, Y20, W75-W76); iv) drowning (X71 and Y21); v) jumping (X80 and Y30); and vi) all other methods. Each suicide was assigned to one of Taiwan’s 358 administrative districts (median population aged 15+ years = 27 000) according to the individual’s registered residence as recorded on the
death certificate. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting the analyses to certified suicides only (X60-X84).
Population data were obtained from the Demographic Fact Books (2002-2009) published by Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior (http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/year.aspx). These provide annual population statistics for each dis-trict, based on the census and the national household registration system.
Rural-urban definition
An urbanization index developed by the National Health Research Institute, Taiwan [15], was used to categorize each district into one of seven categories from level 1 (most urban) to level 7 (most rural). The index was based on five indicators drawn from the national census and Tai-wan’s register of physicians for the year 2000: i) population density, ii) population with college or higher educations, iii) population aged 65 or over, iv) population working in agriculture and v) the density of physicians. The average population (aged 15 years or above) of each of the seven categories of urbanicity are given in Table 1. Altogether 126 of Taiwan’s 358 districts were categorised as urban (levels 1-3; 72% of the population) and 232 as rural (levels 4-7; 28% of the population); this is in keeping with official statistics indicating that 77% of residents lived in urban areas in 2000 [16].
Area characteristics
To investigate the associations between the proportion of people working in farming in a particular area and the incidence of pesticide suicide in that area, data for the pro-portion of workers involved in agriculture in each district were obtained from the most recent (2000) census [17]. In the main multivariable analyses we assessed the possible confounding effects of two area factors: the proportion of lone-parent households (an indicator of social fragmenta-tion) and median household income (an indicator of pov-erty) because a recent study showed that these factors are strongly associated with small-area variations in overall suicide rates in Taiwan [18]. In a sensitivity analysis we assessed the effect of controlling for additional variables associated with area suicide rates [18] - population mobi-lity (i.e. the proportion of people who moved in or moved out from the district during 2000) and the proportion of divorced/separated population (also an indicator of social fragmentation) - as they both showed weak associations with area suicide rates in our previous analysis. In a sepa-rate sensitivity analysis we additionally controlled for area population density, which is also strongly associated with area suicide rates in Taiwan [18]; however, it should be noted that this variable was highly correlated with the pro-portion of people working in agriculture (r = -0.73) ren-dering interpretation of independent associations of
population density/the size of the agricultural workforce problematic due to collinearity [19]. Data on lone-parent households and divorced/separated population for 2000 were extracted from the census [17] and those of median household income were from the Income Tax Statistics [20]. Data for population mobility and population density were extracted from the Taiwanese Demographic Fact Books (2000).
Although suicide data were from 2002-2009, rural-urban definitions and area characteristics were based on data from 2000 because that was the most recent census infor-mation available at the time of the study. All data used in the study are publicly available but access to the suicide and census data is subject to review by the Taiwanese gov-ernment. This study used officially published data and therefore ethical approval is not required.
Statistical analysis
‘Raw’ (unsmoothed) standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), i.e. the ratio of the observed to expected num-ber of pesticide suicides, were calculated for each of the 358 administrative districts for those aged 15+ years. The‘expected’ number of suicides in each area was esti-mated by multiplying the national sex-age-specific sui-cide rates (in 5-year age-bands) and the corresponding sex-age-specific population in each district. Data over the 8-year period (2002-2009) were aggregated to ensure sufficient events in each area. However, SMR estimates can still be unstable in small areas/populations as sui-cide is a relatively rare outcome (annual insui-cidence in Taiwan = 24.5 per 100 000 per year) - a small change in the number of suicides may have a marked impact on the SMR estimates [21]. To address this issue Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate the ‘smoothed’ SMR for each district. The ‘smoothed’ esti-mates are the weighted averages of the SMRs for the area of interest and the mean risk in the neighboring areas or in the whole region studied, with the weights depending on the variability observed among areas of
the study region. In this way, smoothed estimates of SMRs for each area can‘borrow strength’ from data in the neighboring areas which share similar characteristics or the whole region being studied [22]. This improves the precision of the SMR estimates and takes account of small area variations in rates, thus enabling an investiga-tion into the real differences in suicide risk between geographic areas.
The Bayesian hierarchical models were based on a Poisson assumption for the observed number of suicides, with random effects allowing for non-structural variabil-ity (heterogenevariabil-ity across all areas in the study region) and structural variability (autocorrelation between neigh-boring areas) [21,23]. Sets of districts that share a border were defined as neighboring areas. Bayesian hierarchical models were estimated using the Markov chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in WinBUGS version 1.4. Vague prior distributions were used, and convergence of the simulations was assessed using the Gelman-Rubin statistic [24], based on three parallel chains. The built-in conditional autoregressive (CAR) distribution in Win-BUGS was used to specify the spatially structural variabil-ity [25]. Hierarchical models were also constructed to investigate the associations of area characteristics with suicide both before and after controlling for all other characteristics. All analyses used standardized levels (z scores) of area characteristics or their log-transformed values when the distributions of raw values were posi-tively skewed.
Method-specific age-standardized suicide rates were calculated for rural and urban areas, as well as areas in the seven urbanization levels, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) world standard population [26].
Mapping
Choropleth maps, with different shades of color represent-ing different incidence rates, were used to represent the geographic patterning of suicide. A divergent red-blue
Table 1 Numbers, percents and rates of pesticide and non-pesticide suicides by urbanization level in Taiwan, 2002-2009 Population aged 15+ (N = 18 457 000) Pesticide suicide (N = 4913) Non-pesticide suicide (N = 31 197)
Urbanization level n (%) n (%) Rate per 100 000 n (%) Rate per 100 000
1 (most urban) 4 160 000 (22.5) 183 (3.7) 0.5 7138 (22.9) 20.7 2 5 417 000 (29.3) 712 (14.5) 1.6 9442 (30.3) 21.1 3 3 748 000 (20.3) 820 (16.7) 2.9 6554 (21.0) 21.8 4 2 936 000 (15.9) 1377 (28.0) 5.4 4746 (15.2) 19.3 5 470 000 (2.5) 308 (6.3) 6.7 749 (2.4) 18.2 6 881 000 (4.8) 885 (18.0) 10.9 1323 (4.2) 17.6 7 (most rural) 845 000 (4.6) 628 (12.8) 8.7 1245 (4.0) 17.6
color scheme was used [27]; with varying shades used for areas with high (red) and low (blue) suicide rates; the cen-tral (average) category was shaded white. Maps were pro-duced using ArcGIS Version 9.3.
Unsmoothed and smoothed SMRs for each district were ranked into eight categories; each of these was assigned a different color/shade as described above. Since the distri-bution of SMRs was skewed, symmetric categories on the logarithmic scale centered around 1.00 (the global mean of the study region) were preferred to dividing districts equally into quartiles/quintiles etc., as such categorization is sensitive to the distribution of data and may group values that differ greatly into broad and heterogeneous bands. The central category was chosen to include a range spanning 0.5 standard deviation below one to 0.5 standard deviation above one (i.e. SMRs of 0.9-1.1). Second, the most extreme categories at two ends of the distribution represented rate ratios that were a half or a double of the national average (i.e. < 0.5 and > 2.0 respectively). Last, the intermediate two breaks between the middle and the most extreme categories were separated at values that were two standard deviations away from one (i.e. 0.5-0.67 and 0.67-0.9 below one, and 1.1-1.5 and 1.5-2.0 above one). These resulted in seven categories that are symmetrical on the logarithmic scale (< 0.5, 0.5-0.67, 0.67-0.9, 0.9-1.1, 1.1-1.5, 1.5-2.0 and 2.0-5.0); one additional category was used to represent the highest values (> 5.0).
Results
Spatial patterning of suicide
Taiwan’s urban region includes most of the western part of the island, with four major cities - Taipei in the north, Taichung in middle Taiwan, and Tainan and Kaohsiung in the southwest; population aged 15+ in these four cities was 2 176 000, 815 000, 617 000 and 1 244 000 respec-tively. Hualien (population aged 15+ = 87 000) is the only city in East Taiwan, which otherwise comprises mostly rural and mountainous areas.
Between 2002 and 2009 there were 36 110 suicides in Taiwan; 4913 (13.6%) of these were pesticide poisonings. 3950 (80.4%) of the pesticide deaths were certified as sui-cides, 639 (13.0%) as undetermined deaths and 324 (6.6%) as accidents. The proportion of males among the pesticide suicides (71.7%) was similar to that for non-pesticide sui-cides (68.2%), though pesticide suisui-cides tended to be older (mean age 55.1 years) than non-pesticide suicides (mean age 47.7).
In 2002-2009 pesticide poisoning was the third most commonly used method in Taiwan, following hanging (30.2%) and poisoning using non-domestic gases (25.0%); pesticide poisoning accounted for 69% of all suicides from poisoning using solid or liquid substances. Table 2 sum-marizes the distributions of pesticide, non-pesticide and overall suicides and the area characteristics investigated
across the 358 Taiwanese districts. Raw (unsmoothed) SMRs for pesticide suicides showed a striking 65-fold dif-ference (90% range 0.08-5.18) even when the most extreme 10% values were excluded. There was also a marked 22-fold difference in smoothed SMRs (90% range 0.20-4.49). In contrast, non-pesticide suicides showed much less spatial variation; unsmoothed and smoothed SMRs showed 2.5-fold (90% range 0.55-1.40) and 1.6-fold (90% range 0.78-1.21) differences respectively.
As shown in Table 2, the mean and median of raw and smoothed SMRs for pesticide suicides were higher than one (i.e. the national average); this was because a large number of districts (mostly rural) with small populations showed higher than the national average rates while a smaller number of districts that were urban and had much larger populations showed lower than the national average rates.
Figure 1 shows the geographic distributions of smoothed SMRs for (A) pesticide suicide, (B) non-pesticide suicide and (C) overall suicide. The patterns for unsmoothed SMRs were similar but somewhat less clear due to unstable estimates in sparsely populated areas (data not shown). Higher rates of pesticide suicide were found in East and Central Taiwan, with a concentration of the high-est rates in the most rural areas (Figure 1A). One hundred and thirty (36.6%) districts had a SMR above two; they accounted for nearly half (46.6%) of all pesticide suicides, but only 13.4% of Taiwan’s population aged 15+ live in these areas. In contrast, five major cities showed the lowest rates; they covered 26.8% of overall population but accounted for only 6% of pesticide suicides.
In contrast to the distinct geographic pattern of pesticide suicide, there was no strong spatial patterning for non-pesticide suicide, although above average rates were found in Kaohsiung city and some areas surrounding Taipei city (Figure 1B). The geographic distribution of overall suicides (Figure 1C) was more similar to that of pesticide suicides than non-pesticide suicides, indicating the impact of pesti-cide suipesti-cide on the overall spatial patterning of suipesti-cide in Taiwan.
In the sensitivity analyses including certified suicides only, the main features of the spatial patterning of pesti-cide, non-pesticide and overall suicides were similar to those based on data for certified and possible suicides combined (data not shown).
Rural-urban differences
Overall suicide rates were higher in rural than urban areas (25.6 versus 22.8 per 100 000) in Taiwan. Table 3 shows rural and urban rates of suicide and their differences by suicide method. The differences in overall suicide rates between rural and urban areas were mostly attributable to pesticide suicide - the rural-urban difference in pesticide suicide rates was 5.4 per 100 000 (7.0 versus 1.6 per
Table 2 Number of suicides, raw standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), smoothed SMRs and area characteristics across Taiwan’s 358 districts
Mean (standard deviation) Median (5th centile, 95th centile) Pesticide suicidea(2002-2009) Number of suicides 13.7 (10.4) 11.5 (1, 35) Raw SMRs 1.88 (1.83) 1.47 (0.08, 5.18) Smoothed SMRs 1.80 (1.45) 1.47 (0.20, 4.49) Non-pesticide suicideb(2002-2009) Number of suicides 87.1 (111.1) 45 (6, 310) Raw SMRs 0.95 (0.27) 0.95 (0.55, 1.40) Smoothed SMRs 0.96 (0.15) 0.93 (0.78, 1.21) Overall suicidec(2002-2009) Number of suicides 100.9 (113.7) 59 (9, 318) Raw SMRs 1.08 (0.34) 1.04 (0.69, 1.59) Smoothed SMRs 1.06 (0.17) 1.04 (0.82, 1.37) Area characteristics (2000) Agricultural workforce (%)d 19.6 (16.4) 15.8 (0.6, 50.0) Lone-parent households (%)d 5.9 (1.3) 5.7 (4.2, 8.5)
Median household income (1000 Taiwan dollar)e 512.7 (78.0) 498.0 (415.0, 650.0) a
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from pesticide poisoning b
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from suffocation c
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from pesticide poisoning/suffocation d
Data from the 2000 census e
Data from the 2000 Income Tax Files
Figure 1 Mapsafor (A) pesticide, (B) non-pesticide and (C) overall suicidebacross Taiwan
’s 358 districts, 2002-2009.aSmoothed
standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were mapped here.bIncluding certified suicide, undetermined death, and accident from pesticide poisoning
100 000), while for other methods differences ranged from 0.4 per 100 000 for hanging (7.4 versus 7.0 per 100 000) to -1.4 per 100 000 for jumping (1.6 versus 3.0 per 100 000). There was a substantial gradient in pesticide suicide rates across the seven categories of urbanization - rates were 0.5, 1.6, 2.9, 5.4, 6.7, 10.9 and 8.7 per 100 000 for areas in level 1 (most urban) to 7 (most rural) respectively (Table 1). Nearly two thirds of pesticide suicides (65.1%) were in rural areas (levels 4-7), yet these areas included only 28% of Taiwan’s population aged 15+ years. In con-trast, non-pesticide suicide rates showed much less varia-tions - they ranged from 21.8 (level 3) to 17.6 (level 7) per 100 000 (Table 1).
Ecological analyses
Ecological analyses showed that a district’s pesticide sui-cide rate was strongly associated with the proportion of the workforce involved in agriculture (Table 4). Figure 2 shows the maps for the proportions of workforce involved in agriculture, lone-parent households and med-ian household income across Taiwan’s 358 districts in 2000. In the unadjusted model, one standard deviation increase in the proportion of workforce in agriculture was associated with a 78% increase in district rates of pesticide suicide (rate ratio [RR] = 1.78, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.63-1.94), although the strength of associa-tion decreased after controlling for an area’s levels of lone-parent households and median household income (RR = 1.58, 95% CrI 1.44-1.74). When additionally con-trolling for area levels of divorced/separated population and population mobility in a sensitivity analysis, the strength of the association further decreased (RR = 1.46, 95% CrI 1.31-1.61). In another sensitivity analysis that additionally controlled for an area’s level of population density, the association of pesticide suicide rates with the proportions of workforce involved in agriculture attenu-ated markedly (RR = 1.24, 95% CrI 1.10-1.38), but this may be an underestimate as population density was strongly correlated with an area’s level of agricultural workforce (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.73) and
likely to be a partial indicator of agricultural workforce and exposure to pesticides in itself.
In contrast, rates of non-pesticide suicide were lower in districts with a higher proportion of workforce involved in agriculture (unadjusted RR = 0.93, 95% CrI 0.90-0.96; adjusted RR = 0.91, 95% CrI 0.87-0.95). Overall suicide rates were positively associated with an area’s level of agricultural workforce (unadjusted RR = 1.09, 95% CrI 1.06-1.13; adjusted RR = 1.06, 95% CrI 1.03-1.10), although the strengths of associations were much weaker than those for pesticide suicide.
In the sensitivity analyses including certified suicides only, results were similar to those based on certified and possible suicides combined (detailed data not shown). In the models controlling for lone-parent households and median household income, districts where a higher pro-portion of population worked in agriculture had higher rates of pesticide suicide (adjusted RR = 1.76, 95% CrI 1.48-2.09), lower rates of non-pesticide suicide (adjusted RR = 0.92, 95% CrI 0.87-0.99) and higher overall suicide rates (adjusted RR = 1.09, 95% CrI 1.03-1.16).
Discussion
There were striking geographic variations and a distinct spatial patterning for pesticide suicide in Taiwan, with higher rates in Central and East Taiwan and lower rates in major cities. The highest rates of pesticide suicide were found in the most rural areas. Areas where rates were more than two times higher than the national aver-age accounted for almost half (46.6%) of all pesticide sui-cides but were inhabited by only 13.4% of the population aged 15+. The geographic distribution of overall suicides was more similar to that of pesticide suicides than non-pesticide suicides. Rural-urban differences in suicide were mostly due to pesticide suicide. Areas where a higher proportion of the population worked in agricul-ture had higher pesticide-specific and overall suicide rates but not non-pesticide suicide rates. The association of the proportion of agricultural workforce with area pes-ticide suicide rates persisted after controlling for area
Table 3 Age-standardized suicide rates per 100 000 in rural and urban areas in Taiwan, 2002-2009
Suicide method Rural areas
(rate per 100 000) Urban areas (rate per 100 000) Rural-urban difference (rate per 100 000) Pesticide suicide 7.0 1.6 5.4 Non-pesticide suicide 18.6 21.2 -2.6
Poisoning using solid/liquids other than pesticides 1.5 1.4 0.1
Poisoning using non-domestic gases 5.0 6.3 -1.3
Hanging 7.4 7.0 0.4
Drowning 1.5 1.8 -0.2
Jumping 1.6 3.0 -1.4
Table 4 Rate ratios (and 95% Credible Intervals) of suicide per SDaincrease in three area characteristics
Area characteristics Rate ratio (95% Credible Intervals), unadjusted
Rate ratio (95% Credible Intervals), adjusted for all other characteristics
Pesticide suicideb
Agricultural workforce (%) 1.78 (1.63, 1.94) 1.58 (1.44, 1.74) Lone-parent households (%)e 1.06 (0.97, 1.17) 1.09 (1.10, 1.17)
Median household income (1000 Taiwan Dollar)e
0.63 (0.58, 0.68) 0.75 (0.69, 0.82)
Non-pesticide suicidec
Agricultural workforce (%) 0.93 (0.90, 0.96) 0.91 (0.87, 0.95) Lone-parent households (%)e 1.12 (1.08, 1.15) 1.10 (1.06, 1.13)
Median household income (1000
Taiwan Dollar)e 0.98 (0.96, 1.10) 0.95 (0.92, 0.98)
Overall suicided
Agricultural workforce (%) 1.09 (1.06, 1.13) 1.06 (1.03, 1.10) Lone-parent households (%)e 1.10 (1.07, 1.13) 1.10 (1.07, 1.13) Median household income (1000
Taiwan Dollar)e
0.90 (0.88, 0.92) 0.94 (0.91, 0.96)
a
Standard deviation (SDs for agricultural workforce, lone-parent households and median household income were 16.4%, 1.3% and 78,000 Taiwan dollar [= 2500 US dollar] respectively)
b
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from pesticide poisoning c
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from suffocation d
Including certified suicides, undetermined deaths and accidents from pesticide poisoning/suffocation e
Values were log-transformed before standardization due to their skewed distributions
Figure 2 Mapsafor (A) agricultural workforce (%), (B) lone-parent households (%) and (C) median household income.aAccording to
indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage, which may themselves increase the risk of suicide.
Strengths and limitations
To our knowledge this is the first nationwide analysis of small-area variations in suicide from pesticide poisoning. The availability of small-area data allowed a detailed investigation of the spatial distribution of pesticide sui-cide. The study has a number of limitations. First, data for non-fatal self-poisoning using pesticides were unavail-able. This study was unable to determine whether the spatial patterning of pesticide suicide was due to varia-tions in the incidence of self-poisoning or in case fatality following pesticide poisoning; area differences in case-fatality could be caused by area differences in access to medical services or variations in the toxicity of the pesti-cides commonly taken in episodes of self-poisoning (due to variations in agricultural practices). Second, an area’s proportion of workforce in agriculture was used as the proxy indicator of access to pesticides; other variables may be better markers of pesticide accessibility, e.g. pesti-cide sales, for which small-area data were unavailable. Third, we aggregated data for 8 years (2002-2009) to ensure a sufficient number of events in small areas. Such aggregation may mask area-specific changes in suicide rates over this period; analysis of relevant data revealed that although pesticide suicide rates did decline over this period, the reduction was similar in rural and urban areas (32% and 33% respectively). Last, there are geo-graphic variations in the quality of suicide statistics in Taiwan [28]; however, results were similar when using data for certified suicides only or certified and possible suicides combined.
Comparison with previous studies
The study showed substantial geographic variation in the incidence of pesticide suicide and its impact on the over-all spatial patterning of suicide in Taiwan. In contrast, non-pesticide suicides showed no strong spatial pattern-ing. A recent study from Taiwan showed that self-poison-ing usself-poison-ing solid or liquid substances demonstrated the greatest geographic variations compared with other com-mon suicide methods [18]; the present study showed that 69% of such solids/liquids poisoning suicides were due to pesticides. This study also showed that pesticide suicide contributed to most of the rural-urban disparity of sui-cide in Taiwan. A recent study demonstrated that such disparity had attenuated over the last decade after the emergence of charcoal-burning suicides around 1998-2000, which concentrated in mostly urban areas [29].
Areas with a high proportion of their labour force work-ing in agriculture experienced higher rates of pesticide sui-cide, but not non-pesticide suisui-cide, both before and after controlling for area socioeconomic disadvantage. The
association suggested the role of means availability in the spatial distribution of pesticide suicides - suicide rates were higher in areas where there was easier access to pes-ticides, indicated by a higher proportion of people working in agriculture. Likewise, an ecological analysis in South Korea found strong association of pesticide self-poisoning mortality rates with an index of farming activities and population [12]. In contrast, a recent study in southern rural Sri Lanka found that areas with a high proportion of population working in agriculture had low rates of self-poisoning, although a greater proportion of episodes in these areas involved pesticides [10]. However, this study was limited to investigating only a relatively small, mainly agricultural area in southern Sri Lanka. The socioeco-nomic characteristics of workers in this area are likely to be quite different from those in Taiwan and South Korea. Furthermore, farmers in different countries may be involved in different types of cultivation with varying requirements of pesticide application, and thus the ‘popu-lation working in agriculture’ may be a good indicator of pesticide accessibility in some but not other countries/ regions. Recent person-based studies in rural China pro-vided further evidence for pesticide access as an indepen-dent risk factor for suicide in resiindepen-dents controlling for individuals’ socioeconomic conditions and mental disorders [30].
Public health implications
The WHO acknowledges that pesticide ingestion is among the mostly frequently used methods of suicide worldwide [31]. Pesticides are readily available in rural areas of developing countries and commonly used in impulsive acts of self-poisoning following acute life crisis [32,33]. This leads to many tragic deaths due to the high case fatality associated with pesticide ingestion [34]. One strategy to reduce these deaths is to restrict the availabil-ity of toxic pesticides. Studies in countries such as Finland [3] and Sri Lanka [4] showed marked reductions in pesticide suicides after restricting their use. In keeping with these, the present study showed that the spatial dis-tribution of pesticide suicide was strongly associated with the distribution of agricultural workforce, an indicator of pesticide availability/accessibility. Other strategies for preventing pesticide suicides included safe storage in lockable boxes [35,36], centralized communal storage, education to users, retailers and community leaders [37], stopped using all pesticides by adopting non-pesticide management policy [38] and improved medical treatment of pesticide poisoning [39]. A study of the effectiveness of locked boxes is currently underway in Sri Lanka [40]. It is not yet clear which intervention is the most promising [41] because no comparative cost-effectiveness analysis is possible at the moment. A hazard reduction approach suggests that banning the more toxic pesticides from
agricultural practice would be most effective [42]. How-ever, the agricultural costs and the healthcare benefits of switching to less toxic pesticides are not currently known.
This study showed that, in Taiwan, some areas had dis-proportionately high numbers of pesticide suicides. In the eastern mountainous part and central rural areas of Taiwan, where rates of pesticide suicide were high, strate-gies such as restricting access to the highly toxic pesticides and improving the medical care of self-poisoning may reduce suicide mortality. Such prevention strategies may help to tackle inequality in suicide burden in Taiwan as pesticide suicide was the major contributor to geographic variations in overall suicide rates. Identification of areas with high rates of pesticide suicide will inform the alloca-tion of prevenalloca-tion resources targeted at reducing these deaths.
Conclusions
The spatial variation and patterning of pesticide suicide in Taiwan was striking, with around half of such deaths occurring in areas where only one eighth of the population live. Suicides by pesticide poisoning contributed to most of the geographic distribution and rural-urban difference in overall suicides, compared with suicides by other methods. Easy access to pesticides, indicated by the size of the agri-cultural workforce in an area, was associated with a high incidence of pesticide suicide but not non-pesticide sui-cides, after accounting for markers of area socioeconomic disadvantage. The results highlighted the potential benefits of targeted suicide prevention strategies such as restricting access to highly toxic pesticides.
Acknowledgements and funding
This study is in part supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council General Research Fund (HKU784210M). S-SC’s fellowship at the University of Bristol is funded by the National Science Council, Taiwan (NSC-98-2917-I-564-162). DG is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. ME is a Scottish Senior Clinical Research Fellow (funded by the CSO/SCF) and a Lister Prize Fellow. These funding bodies have no role in study design or data analysis. The authors wish to thank Miss Pai Huang Lin for her help with the data compilation.
Author details
1School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 2Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention, The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong SAR, China.3Ju Shan Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.4Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.5Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University/BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.6Department of Psychiatry,
Chi-Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.7Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
8Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung
University, No.1, Daxue Rd., East District, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan.
Authors’ contributions
S-SC, T-HL and DG contributed to study design. S-SC undertook the analysis with input from JS and DG. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results. S-SC wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 7 October 2011 Accepted: 2 April 2012 Published: 2 April 2012
References
1. Gunnell D, Eddleston M, Phillips MR, Konradsen F: The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review. BMC Public Health 2007, 7:357.
2. Eddleston M, Karalliedde L, Buckley N, Fernando R, Hutchinson G, Isbister G, Konradsen F, Murray D, Piola JC, Senanayake N, Sheriff R, Singh S, Siwach SB, Smit L: Pesticide poisoning in the developing world-a minimum pesticides list. Lancet 2002, 360:1163-1167.
3. Ohberg A, Lonnqvist J, Sarna S, Vuori E, Penttila A: Trends and availability of suicide methods in Finland. Proposals for restrictive measures. Br J Psychiatry 1995, 166:35-43.
4. Gunnell D, Fernando R, Hewagama M, Priyangika WD, Konradsen F, Eddleston M: The impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36:1235-1242.
5. Manuweera G, Eddleston M, Egodage S, Buckley NA: Do targeted bans of insecticides to prevent deaths from self-poisoning result in reduced agricultural output? Environ Health Perspect 2008, 116:492-495. 6. Sloan JH, Rivara FP, Reay DT, Ferris JA, Kellermann AL: Firearm regulations
and rates of suicide. A comparison of two metropolitan areas. N Engl J Med 1990, 322:369-373.
7. Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D: Household firearm ownership and suicide rates in the United States. Epidemiology 2002, 13:517-524. 8. Studdert DM, Gurrin LC, Jatkar U, Pirkis J: Relationship between vehicle
emissions laws and incidence of suicide by motor vehicle exhaust gas in Australia, 2001-06: an ecological analysis. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000210. 9. Langley R, Sumner D: Pesticide mortality in the United States 1979-1998.
Vet Hum Toxicol 2002, 44:101-105.
10. Manuel C, Gunnell DJ, van der Hoek W, Dawson A, Wijeratne IK, Konradsen F: Self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka: small-area variations in incidence. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:26.
11. Lee WJ, Cha ES: Overview of pesticide poisoning in South Korea. J Rural Med 2009, 4:53-58.
12. Lee WJ, Cha ES, Park ES, Kong KA, Yi JH, Son M: Deaths from pesticide poisoning in South Korea: trends over 10 years. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2009, 82:365-371.
13. Lin JJ, Lu TH: Association between the accessibility to lethal methods and method-specific suicide rates: An ecological study in Taiwan. J Clin Psychiatry 2006, 67:1074-1079.
14. Chang SS, Sterne JA, Lu TH, Gunnell D:’Hidden’ suicides amongst deaths certified as undetermined intent, accident by pesticide poisoning and accident by suffocation in Taiwan. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2010, 45:143-152.
15. Liu CY, Hung YT, Chuang YL, Chen YJ, Weng WS, Liu JS, Liang KY: Incorporating development stratification of Taiwan townships into sampling design of large scale health interview survey (Chin). J Health Manage (Taipei) 2006, 4:1-22.
16. Construction and Planning Agency, Taiwan: Urban Planning. [http:// www.cpami.gov.tw/web/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=1126&Itemid=75].
17. Directorate-General of Budget Accounting and Statistics, Taiwan: Population and Housing Census 2000 Taipei, Taiwan: Executive Yuan, Taiwan; 2001. 18. Chang SS, Sterne JA, Wheeler BW, Lu TH, Lin JJ, Gunnell D: Geography of
suicide in Taiwan: Spatial patterning and socioeconomic correlates. Health Place 2011, 17:641-650.
19. Phillips AN, Smith GD: How independent are“independent” effects? Relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:1223-1231.
20. Financial Data Center, Ministry of Finance, Taiwan: Income Tax Statistics. [http://www.fdc.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=303&ctNode=236].
21. Lawson AB, Biggeri AB, Boehning D, Lesaffre E, Viel JF, Clark A, Schlattmann P, Divino F: Disease mapping models: an empirical evaluation. Disease Mapping Collaborative Group. Stat Med 2000, 19:2217-2241.
22. Lawson AB, Browne W, Vidal-Rodeiro C: Disease mapping with WinBUGS and MLwiN Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2003.
23. Besag J, York J, Mollie A: Bayesian image restoration, with 2 applications in spatial statistics. Ann I Stat Math 1991, 43:1-20.
24. Brooks SP, Gelman A: General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 1998, 7:434-455.
25. Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D, Arnold R, Spiegelhalter D: GeoBUGS User Manual, Version 1.2 Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003.
26. Ahmad O, Boschi-Pinto C, Lopez AD, Murray CJL, Lozano R, Inoue M: Age standardization of rates: a new WHO standard Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.
27. Brewer CA: Guidelines for selecting colors for diverging schemes on maps. Cartographic Journal 1996, 33:79-86.
28. Lu TH, Sun SM, Huang SM, Lin JJ: Mind your manners: quality of manner of death certification among medical examiners and coroners in Taiwan. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2006, 27:352-354.
29. Chang SS, Gunnell D, Wheeler BW, Yip P, Sterne JA: The evolution of the epidemic of charcoal-burning suicide in Taiwan: a spatial and temporal analysis. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000212.
30. Kong Y, Zhang J: Access to farming pesticides and risk for suicide in Chinese rural young people. Psychiatry Res 2010, 179:217-221. 31. Bertolote JM, Fleischmann A, Eddleston M, Gunnell D: Deaths from
pesticide poisoning: a global response. Br J Psychiatry 2006, 189:201-203. 32. Yang GH, Phillips MR, Zhou MG, Wang LJ, Zhang YP, Xu D: Understanding
the unique characteristics of suicide in China: national psychological autopsy study. Biomed Environ Sci 2005, 18:379-389.
33. Eddleston M, Karunaratne A, Weerakoon M, Kumarasinghe S, Rajapakshe M, Sheriff MH, Buckley NA, Gunnell D: Choice of poison for intentional self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006, 44:283-286. 34. Dawson AH, Eddleston M, Senarathna L, Mohamed F, Gawarammana I,
Bowe SJ, Manuweera G, Buckley NA: Acute human lethal toxicity of agricultural pesticides: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2010, 7: e1000357.
35. Konradsen F, Pieris R, Weerasinghe M, van der Hoek W, Eddleston M, Dawson AH: Community uptake of safe storage boxes to reduce self-poisoning from pesticides in rural Sri Lanka. BMC Public Health 2007, 7:13. 36. Hawton K, Ratnayeke L, Simkin S, Harriss L, Scott V: Evaluation of
acceptability and use of lockable storage devices for pesticides in Sri Lanka that might assist in prevention of self-poisoning. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:69.
37. World Health Organization: Safer access to pesticides: community interventions Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
38. Vijayakumar L, Satheesh-Babu R: Does‘no pesticide’ reduce suicides? Int J Soc Psychiatry 2009, 55:401-406.
39. World Health Organization: Clinical management of acute pesticide intoxication: prevention of suicidal behaviours Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
40. Pearson M, Konradsen F, Gunnell D, Dawson AH, Pieris R, Weerasinghe M, Knipe DW, Jayamanne S, Metcalfe C, Hawton K, Wickramasinghe AR, Atapattu W, Bandara P, de Silva D, Ranasinghe A, Mohamed F, Buckley NA, Gawarammana I, Eddleston M: A community-based cluster randomised trial of safe storage to reduce pesticide self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka: study protocol. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:879.
41. Eddleston M, Buckley NA, Gunnell D, Dawson AH, Konradsen F: Identification of strategies to prevent death after pesticide self-poisoning using a Haddon matrix. Inj Prev 2006, 12:333-337. 42. Roberts DM, Karunarathna A, Buckley NA, Manuweera G, Sheriff MH,
Eddleston M: Influence of pesticide regulation on acute poisoning deaths in Sri Lanka. Bull World Health Organ 2003, 81:789-798.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/260/prepub
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-260
Cite this article as: Chang et al.: The impact of pesticide suicide on the geographic distribution of suicide in Taiwan: a spatial analysis. BMC Public Health 2012 12:260.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit
