Abstract
Objective
Beliefs about suicide are important aspects of suicide prevention gatekeeper trainings. This study sought to determine if workers in finance- and legal/judicial-related industries have significantly different levels of suicide acceptability compared to the general US population.
Method
Cross-sectional data are from the 2002 to 2021 General Social Survey (GSS). Suicide acceptability was measured with four dichotomous items to which respondents indicated yes/no if they thought someone has the right to end their life in four negative life scenarios. Occupational categories were coded based on U.S. Census Bureau occupation and industry codes. Covariates for multiple logistic regression analyses included age, educational attainment, sex, race, ethnicity, survey year, and religiosity.
Results
Among the 15,166 respondents, 651 people worked in finance-related occupations and 319 people worked in legal/judicial-related occupations. In adjusted models, people in finance-related occupations had greater odds of endorsing suicide as acceptable if one has an incurable disease (aOR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.03–1.52) and marginally greater odds of endorsing suicide as acceptable if one dishonors their family (aOR = 1.31, 95%CI = 0.99–1.74) than the general adult population. People in legal/judicial-related occupations were more likely to endorse 3 of the 4 suicide acceptability items compared to the general adult population, however these differences were not statistically significant after accounting for demographic factors.
Conclusion
Workers in non-clinical industries that frequently see clients during negative life events are prime audiences for gatekeeper trainings but may have entrenched beliefs about suicide acceptability. Research is needed to determine how these beliefs may impact gatekeeper training.
HIGHLIGHTS
Negative life events (e.g., divorce) are common correlates of suicidal crisis
Suicide acceptability differed by occupation type compared to the general US adult population
Financial- and legal/judicial workers may need more tailored suicide gatekeeper training
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank NORC at the University of Chicago for making concatenated General Social Survey data freely and publicly available.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the institutions, National Institutes of Health, or the United States Government.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets from General Social Survey are freely and publicly available from NORC at the University of Chicago at https://gss.norc.org.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
John R. Blosnich
John R. Blosnich, PhD, MPH, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexandra M. Haydinger
Alexandra Haydinger, BA, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Harmony Rhoades
Harmony Rhoades, PhD, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Susan M. De Luca
Susan M. De Luca, PhD, MSW, Center for Health Care Research and Policy, The MetroHealth System, Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH, USA.