Cited by 232Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health

Psychological Autopsy Studies as Diagnostic Tools: Are They Methodologically Flawed?

Open access
Hjelmeland, Heidi, Dieserud, Gudrun, Dyregrov, Kari, Knizek, Birthe L., Leenaars, Antoon A.·2012·Death Studies

Abstract

One of the most established "truths" in suicidology is that almost all (90% or more) of those who kill themselves suffer from one or more mental disorders, and a causal link between the two is implied. Psychological autopsy (PA) studies constitute one main evidence base for this conclusion. However, there has been little reflection on the reliability and validity of this method. For example, psychiatric diagnoses are assigned to people who have died by suicide by interviewing a few of the relatives and/or friends, often many years after the suicide. In this article, we scrutinize PA studies with particular focus on the diagnostic process and demonstrate that they cannot constitute a valid evidence base for a strong relationship between mental disorders and suicide. We show that most questions asked to assign a diagnosis are impossible to answer reliably by proxies, and thus, one cannot validly make conclusions. Thus, as a diagnostic tool psychological autopsies should now be abandoned. Instead, we recommend qualitative approaches focusing on the understanding of suicide beyond mental disorders, where narratives from a relatively high number of informants around each suicide are systematically analyzed in terms of the informants' relationships with the deceased.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07481187.2011.584015

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The psychological autopsy approach has limitations including issues relating to the choice (and selective non-response) of control subjects and the reliance on proxy reports, which are prone to recall bias and measurement error.

    “In addition, there are several limitations inherent to the psychological autopsy approach,23–25 including issues relating to the choice (and selective non-response) of control subjects and the reliance on proxy reports—the latter being prone to recall bias and measurement error.”
  • Risk estimates for diagnostic categories in the current review (especially when limited to studies using living controls) were largely similar in magnitude to those reported in a recent meta-analysis of record linkage studies.

    “Although the method of psychological autopsy has been criticised for overestimating the contribution of mental disorders to suicide,25 risk estimates for diagnostic categories in the current review (in particular when limited to studies using living controls) were largely similar in magnitude to those reported in a recent meta-analysis of record linkage studies.22”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hawton K. Shepherd E. Watson J. P. How patients and psychiatrists account for overdoses Personal meanings 1982 New York, NY Wiley 103 114

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hjelmeland, H., Dieserud, G., Dyregrov, K., Knizek, B. L., & Leenaars, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Hjelmeland, Heidi
Venue
Death Studies
Published
2012-08
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
605-626
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
OpenAlex
W1978805704
Cited by
232
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Death Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Keywords
psychological autopsy, suicide, mental illness, psychiatric diagnosis, reliability and validity, qualitative approach, suicide narratives
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychopathology, Suicide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review