Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Ruthen_US
dc.contributor.authorDoessel, Darrelen_US
dc.contributor.authorSveticic, Jernejaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDe Leo, Diegoen_US
dc.contributor.editorPeter Joyceen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T08:33:38Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T08:33:38Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2010-09-21T06:57:41Z
dc.identifier.issn00048674en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/34157
dc.description.abstractObjective: The purpose is to answer the following research question: are the time-series data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for Queensland statistically the same as those of the Queensland Suicide Register? Method: This question was answered by fi rst modelling statistically, for males and females, the time series suicide data from these two sources for the period of data availability, 1994 to 2007 (14 observations). Fitted values were then derived from the ' best fi t ' equations, after rigorous diagnostic testing. The outliers in these data sets were addressed with pulse dummy variables. Finally, by applying the Wald test to determine whether or not the fi tted values are the same, we determined whether, for males and females, these two data sets are the same or different. Results: The study showed that the Queensland suicide rate, based on Queensland Suicide Register data, was greater than that based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data. Further statistical testing showed that the differences between the two data sets are statistically signifi cant for 24 of the 28 pair-wise comparisons. Conclusions: The quality of Australia ' s official suicide data is affected by various practices in data collection. This study provides a unique test of the accuracy of published suicide data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Queensland Suicide Register ' s defi nition of suicide applies a more suicidological, or medical/health, conception of suicide, and applies different practices of coding suicide cases, timing of data collection processes, etc. The study shows that ' difference ' between the two data sets predominates, and is statistically signifi cant; thus the extent of the under-reporting of suicide is not trivial. Given that official suicide data are used for many purposes, including policy evaluation of suicide prevention programmes, it is suggested that the system used in Queensland should be adopted by the rest of Australia too. Key words: data quality , data reporting , evaluation research , suicide .en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherInforma Healthcareen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://informahealthcare.com/journal/anpen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom815en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto822en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue9en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatryen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume44en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchStatistics not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode010499en_US
dc.titleAccuracy of official suicide mortality data in Queenslanden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, Australian Institute for Suicide Research & Preventionen_US
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record