In most developed countries, male suicides occur at a rate about three times higher than female suicides (Lengvenyte et al, 2021; Turecki et al, 2019). Men are less likely to seek help from professionals, often due to social norms defined by traditional masculinity (Seidler et al, 2016). For instance, men are expected to appear strong and self-reliant, making it difficult for them to acknowledge when they need help.
While quantitative research can identify who is most at risk of suicide, understanding the reasons behind it is more complex. This complex behavior is influenced by a wide range of factors, some of which are interdependent and others are independent. Therefore, qualitative research is necessary to gain deeper insights into the pathways and mechanisms that contribute to suicide. This blog outlines a recent systematic review of qualitative evidence that explores the risk and recovery factors for male suicide globally (Bennett et al, 2023).
To understand the common themes and psychological phenomena contributing to male suicide risk and recovery, Bennett and colleagues (2023) carried out a comprehensive search across seven databases for qualitative studies. This review focused exclusively on studies exploring adult-aged men (age 18 and over) from 2000 to 2020, with only published work included. A total of 78 studies, covering over 1,695 individuals, were identified and analyzed to uncover emerging themes and patterns.
The study presents two models, one representing risk factors and the other representing recovery factors. The risk model suggests that psychological pain and risk may stem from emotional suppression, denial, and disconnection. On the other hand, the recovery model suggests that recognizing, reconnecting with, and regulating these psychological phenomena may help reduce the risk. Additionally, the authors found that proximal risk factors were exacerbated by distal ones.
The findings from this review underscore the critical role that certain masculine norms play in male suicide. To effectively prevent suicide, it is essential to address gender-sensitive interventions and policies. Furthermore, exploring the recovery factors that support men who are at risk is a crucial aspect of suicide prevention.
One of the main strengths of this review is the in-depth understanding provided by the meta-analysis of the qualitative studies. However, its limitations, such as an underrepresentation of non-English language studies and the predominantly White and cisgendered participant demographic, should be acknowledged. These limitations may impact the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
The implications for practice call for diverse strategies, including therapeutic support and gender-sensitive interventions. Understanding and addressing the impact of societal norms on men’s emotional well-being is crucial for suicide prevention. Effective suicide prevention efforts must take into account the complex interplay of risk factors and protective factors.
In conclusion, the study highlights the need for additional research to further understand the mechanisms and pathways of male suicide, particularly in underrepresented groups. It underscores that suicide risks are unique to each individual and should be addressed within the larger context of societal norms and expectations.
