Views and attitudes regarding communication about suicide held by public relations and communication

professionals in AustraliaReport prepared by Jaelea Skehan, Ross Tyan and Renate Thienel for the

Hunter Institute of Mental Health, the Mindframe National Media Initiative and the Public Relations Institute of Australia.

About the research• Within the suicide literature, there has been extensive research

investigating the relationship between news reporting and suicide. This research has been used to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding how to safely report on suicide.

• There has been very little research, however, looking at the views and attitudes of media, public relations and communication professionals.

• This research aimed to gather information about public relations and communication professionals’ attitudes towards the reporting and broader communication about suicide; their level of exposure to suicide; and their attitude towards suicide in general.

• This research is complemented by two further studies to assess the knowledge and attitudes of media professionals and students studying journalism or public relations.

About the research

• This research forms part of a PhD study through the University of Newcastle and was supported by a team of staff from the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, who manage the Mindframe National Media Initiative.

• The research has been approved by the University of Newcastle’s Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval No H-2014-0369.

• This is a summary report of results, which have not yet been peer-reviewed. It has been developed for broader communication through the Mindframe National Media Initiative and the Public Relations Institute of Australia.

• Further analysis will be included as part of a peer-reviewed publication.

Acknowledgements

• This research forms part of Jaelea Skehan’s PhD study supervised by Professor Brian Kelly (University of Newcastle), Professor Jane Pirkis (University of Melbourne) and Associate Professor Myfanwy Maple (University of New England).

• The research was supported by a team of staff from the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, including Dr Ross Tynan, Dr Renate Thienel and Mr Marc Bryant.

• The Public Relations Institute of Australia and the project team working on the Mindframe National Media Initiative supported recruitment for this study.

The Australian context• In Australia, evidence-based guidelines for media reporting of suicide have

been developed and disseminated by the Hunter Institute of Mental Health under the Mindframe National Media Initiative (Mindframe).

• Mindframe is a comprehensive and multi-faceted strategy that targets media organisations and media professionals as well as the mental health and suicide prevention sectors, police, courts, film and television, and universities offering programs in journalism, communication and public relations. It also offers a StigmaWatch program delivered by SANE Australia.

• While the Mindframe strategy has developed resources for universities offering public relations programs and has engaged with professional communicators within targeted sectors, the program has not actively engaged with public relations practitioners as a profession more broadly.

Research methodology

• People were eligible to participate in the research if they were: (a) over the age of 18 years; and (b) were currently (or in the past 2 years) employed as a public relations or communication professional in Australia.

• The survey was promoted by the Public Relations Institute of Australia and the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, using email, media release, social media posts and other online discussion forums.

• Participation was voluntary and all surveys were completed online. At the end of the survey, participants were provided with an option to go into a draw (with contact details entered separately to the survey) to win one of ten $50 vouchers.

Research methodology

The survey instrument included five sections:

1. Participant demographics, including age, gender, current role, educational background;

2. A 20-item rating scale assessing participants’ level of agreement with statements about professional communication that involves suicide;

3. The 16-item Stigma of Suicide Scale (SOSS);

4. Questions relating to participants’ personal and professional exposure to suicide;

5. Questions about participants’ prior exposure to the Mindframe program and resources.

1. Participant demographics

Yes, pro

fessional m

ember

Yes, Asso

ciate m

ember

Yes, new practi

tioner

Yes, Fello

w

Yes, PRelationsh

ips

No, not a

member

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

29.5%

4.7% 2.8% 4.7% 3.4%

55.2%

Are you a member of the Public Relations Institute of Australia?

Figure 1. Participants (%) who are a current member of PRIA.

A total of 290 participants met the eligibility criteria and completed the survey.

Almost half (45%) of the sample indicated they were a member of the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA), see Figure 1.

1. Participant demographicsGender: 229 people identified as female (79%), 58 identified as male (20%) and 3 people (1%) did not complete the open field.

Figure 2. Age of participants (%)

25 years or younger

26 - 35 years

36 - 45 years

46 - 55 years

56 - 64 years

65 years or older

Culture: Only 1% (n=3) of participants identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Age: Most participants (81.9%) were aged between 26 and 55 years – see Figure 2.

20%

79%

Just under half of the participants (44%) had studied public relations at an Australian university.

Participants currently worked across government (31%), non-government or not-for-profit (20%), business (15%), university (4%) or worked for an agency or as a consultant (30%) – see Figure 3.

Government Organisation

NGO or Not for profit

Business

University

Agency/Consultancy

Figure 3. Participant organisation (%), n = 124.

1. Participant demographics

More than half of the participants were working in either NSW (28.1%) or Victoria (26.2%) – see Figure 4.

Most participants were working in a capital city (86.6%), with only 13.4% working in a regional or rural area.

Figure 4. Participants (%) by state.

11.8%

28.0%

2.6%

9.2%

2.6%

26.2%

8.5%

11.1%

1. Participant demographics

On average, participants had around 15 years of experience (mean = 14.69 years), with a range between less than one year to 42 years – see Figure 5.

Figure 5. Years of experience (%).

Only one quarter of participants (23%) reported having done some suicide prevention training in the past, with Mindframe, Lifeline and Mental Health First Aid the most common type of training.

<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20+0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

13.2%

22.1%

16.2% 14.7%

33.8%

1. Participant demographics

Yes, daily

Yes, at least weekly

Yes, at least monthly

No, rarely or never

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

25.7%

25.0%

27.2%

22.1%

Does your role involve working with the media?

Yes, daily

Yes, at least weekly

Yes, at least monthly

No, rarely or never

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

36.0%

31.6%

22.4%

9.9%

Does your role involve developing digital content?

Almost 80% of participants worked with the media (at least monthly) as part of their role (see Figure 6). 90% indicated that their role involved frequent development of digital content, with over two-thirds reporting they did this at least weekly (see Figure 7).

Figure 6. Frequency of work with the media (%). Figure 7. Frequency of developing digital content (%).

1. Participant demographics

2. Communication about suicidePublic relations and communication professionals were asked rate their level of agreement with a range of statements about reporting and communicating about suicide, using a 7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

• Table 1 provides a summary of responses to 15 statements that relate to current evidence-informed recommendations provided through the Mindframe Initiative in Australia, and the expected direction of responses based on the current recommendations, indicated by a coloured box.

• Table 2 provides a summary of responses to five more general statements about the frequency and value of reports and professional communication about suicide.

• To simplify the reporting of results, the strongly agree and agree as well as the strongly disagree and disagree categories were combined, with results in Table 1 and Table 2 presented on a 5-point scale.

2. Communication about suicide: Alignment with principles high (>70%)

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

Public relations and communication professionals should ensure information about suicide (including suicide statistics) is accurate and confirmed. (n=261)

0% 0% 0.8% 0%

Public relations and communication professionals should involve suicide prevention experts or services in any communication or campaign about suicide. (n=261)

1.2% 0.8% 2.7% 8.0%

Table 1: Level of agreement with statements about communication and reporting about suicide, with high (>70%), moderate (>50%) or low (<50%) alignment to Mindframe recommendations.

99.2%

87.3%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

There are no specific cultural considerations to apply when communicating about suicide. (n=260) 10.0% 6.2% 1.9% 4.2%

Adding help-seeking information to communication involving suicide is not helpful. (n=261)

7.3% 3.1% 1.9% 2.3%

It is important to issue public communication about a suspected suicide quickly, stating it is a suicide or suspected suicide even if the cause of death has not yet been confirmed. (n=265)

13.6% 5.3% 7.5% 1.5%

2. Communication about suicide: Alignment with principles high (>70%)

77.7%

85.4%

72.0%

2. Communication about suicide: Alignment with principles moderate (>50%)

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

Public communication that involves people who have been suicidal in the past can be helpful. (n=263)

2.6% 1.2% 11.0% 25.9%

The best time to interview/communicate professionally to people bereaved by suicide is soon after the death. (n=268)

15.7% 16.0% 6.7% 5.6%

It is important to include the location of a suicide death in public communication, especially if it occurs in a well-known location. (n=260)

15.8% 13.1% 5.4% 3.8%

If a celebrity dies by suicide, then it is important to communicate about the death in detail. (n=269)

15.6% 9.3% 14.5% 5.5%

59.3%

56.0%

61.9%

55.0%

2. Communication about suicide: Alignment with principles moderate (>50%)

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

Professional communication, including media reports, about suicide should not mention specific details about the method of suicide. (n=273)

4.0% 12.5% 6.6% 18.3%

People working in public relations and communication can be adversely impacted when reporting on suicide. (n=260)

3.1% 2.3% 14.6% 23.1%

When developing digital content that involved suicide, public relations and communication professionals should follow similar guidelines to those used by the media. (n=269)

8.2% 4.5% 8.6% 18.6%

58.6%

56.9%

60.2%

2. Communication about suicide Alignment with principles low (<50%)

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

Suicide deaths should always be reported by the media. (n=273) 19.4% 17.2% 17.6% 11.3%

Reporting on individual deaths by suicide can increase the risk of suicide in other members of the community. (n=265)

18.1% 12.4% 20.8% 21.1%

When communicating about an issue that involves suicide, it is appropriate to use the word “committed suicide”. (n=261)

11.1% 31.4% 12.3% 14.2%

*Strongly disagree/disagree and strongly agree/agree options have been combined in this report.

34.5%

27.6%

31.0%

2. Communication about suicide

Strongly Disagree or Disagree*

Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly agree or agree*

Public relations and communication professionals have an important role to play in suicide prevention. (n=263)

2.3% 3.4% 8.8% 29.3% 56.2%

Reporting on individual deaths by suicide will help to reduce suicide. (n=262) 29.0% 19.5% 26.7% 17.6% 7.2%

Reporting on the broader issue of suicide will help to reduce suicide. (n=262) 1.1% 2.7% 9.2% 25.9% 61.1%

Having a regular ‘suicide toll’ in the media would help reduce suicide. (n=260) 50.4% 11.6% 20.4% 11.5% 6.1%

Media should report suicide more often than they currently do. (n=268) 19.0% 8.2% 21.6% 26.9% 24.3%

* Strongly disagree/disagree and strongly agree/agree options have been combined in this report.

Table 2: Level of agreement with general statements about communication and reporting about suicide.

2. Communication about suicideMore than half of the respondents had never communicated on an issue involving suicide (54.8%), and a further quarter only communicated once or twice a year (27.8%). Of those who answered ‘other’, almost half indicated that they communicated only once in their career or infrequently. When asked how often they heard about suicide as part of their job, people were most likely to indicate this happened at least yearly (44.8%).

daily weekly monthly yearly never other

During your career, how often have you had to communicate about an issue involving suicide?

0.4% 1.2% 5.4% 27.8% 54.8% 15.4%

During your career, how often would you hear about a suicide attempt or suicide death as part of your job?

1.9% 4.2% 12.7% 44.8% 24.3% 12%

Table 3: Frequency (%) of exposure to suicide to suicide as a professional communicator.

2. Communication about suicide

Applying guidelines

When asked to think about their own professional communication about suicide, almost half of the respondents indicated that they applied guidelines for reporting suicide most or all of the time.

Around a quarter were unaware of guidelines, while only few reported using guidelines rarely or not at all.

All of the time

Most of the timeSome of the time

Never

I am unaware of any guidelines

Other

Figure 8. Application of guidelines for reporting suicide in their practice (%).

3. Stigma of SuicideStigma was measured using the 16-item Stigma Of Suicide Scale (SOSS). The SOSS scale measures three underlying constructs: Stigma (8 items); Depression/Isolation (4 Items); Glorification/Normalisation (4 items).

Participants were asked to rate how much they agreed with a series of 16 single-worded items describing someone who takes their own life (suicide). Agreement was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Mean agreement scores for each construct are shown on Table 4.

• For the Stigma construct, higher scores indicate higher levels of stigma.

• On the Depression/Isolation scale, higher scores indicate respondents are more likely to attribute suicide to depression/isolation.

• On the Glorification/Normalisation scale, higher scores indicate that respondents are more likely to glorify or normalise suicide.

Stigma Isolation/ Depression

Glorification/ Normalisation

Public relations and communication professionals (this research - unpublished) 1.58 3.67 1.98

Media professionals (unpublished research) 1.61 3.54 1.91

Australian community* (published research) 2.19 4.11 2.45

Medical students* (published research) 2.06 3.50 1.85

Table 4: Mean Stigma of Suicide construct scores and comparative research.

In general, public relations and communication professionals had comparatively low scores on the stigma and glorification constructs, and higher scores on the depression construct. Based on responses from other published (and unpublished) research, public relations professionals appear to have lower levels of stigma, however caution should be exercised when comparing different research samples.

3. Stigma of Suicide

4. Exposure to suicide (personal)Over three-quarters of participants who provided a response to this question (n=197) reported that they had known someone who died by suicide. Almost 45% (n=88) of these also indicated that they were ‘close’ to at least one person who died by suicide (with a mean of 2.3 people).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

YES

NO

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

YES

NO

Figure 10. Have you been close to someone who died by suicide (%)?Figure 9. Do you know anyone who died by suicide (%)?

Mean = 2.3

(Range: 1-12)

4. Exposure to suicide (personal)When asked how long ago the death occurred, participants were most likely to report it occurred over 10 years ago (42%). When asked to think about the death that had the most impact on their life, most respondents reported that the person was a friend (56.5%) or family member (34.9%).

Family breakdown (n=32):Extended family (53%);

Sibling (22%); Partner (16%); Parent (6%); Child (3%).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

11.40%

21.60%

25%

42%

Over 10 years 5-10 years1-5 years less than 1 year

Figure 11. Relationship to the person (%).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

56.50%

34.9%

5.9%

OtherFamilyFriend

Figure 12. Length of time since the death (%).

4. Exposure to suicide (personal)

Friend (n=48)

Family (n=32) Other (n=5) Total (n=86)

The death had little effect on my life. 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

The death had somewhat of an effect on me but did not disrupt my life. 16.7% 18.8% 20.0% 19.3%

The death disrupted my life for a short time. 33.3% 6.3% 20.0% 21.6%

The death disrupted my life in a significant or devastating way, but I no longer feel that way. 25.0% 18.8% 20.0% 21.6%

The death had a significant or devastating effect on me that I still feel. 25.0% 56.3% 40.0% 37.5%

More than half of participants reported that the death had a significant effect on them, with over a third (37.5%) reporting that they still feel those effects.

Table 5: Impact of exposure to suicide (personal), by relationship.

There was no significant relationship been the length of time since the death and the reported impact that the suicide had on people.

Table 6: Impact of exposure to suicide (personal), by length of time.

<1 year (n=10)

1-5 years (n=19)

5-10 years (n=22)

>10 years (n=37)

The death had little effect on my life. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

The death had somewhat of an effect on me but did not disrupt my life. 10.0% 26.3% 9.1% 24.3%

The death disrupted my life for a short time. 20.0% 26.3% 31.8% 13.5%

The death disrupted my life in a significant or devastating way, but I no longer feel that way. 40.0% 10.5% 22.7% 21.6%

The death had a significant or devastating effect on me that I still feel. 30.0% 36.8% 36.4% 40.5%

4. Exposure to suicide (personal)

4. Exposure to suicide (professional)Almost half (48.4%) of respondents had interviewed or interacted with someone bereaved or affected by suicide as part of their work. When asked about the person impact of these interactions, more than half (57.7%) reported that it had somewhat of an effect but did not disrupt their life, while a further quarter (25.2%) indicated that the interactions disrupted their life for a short while.

Table 7: Impact of exposure to suicide (professional).

(n=123)

The interactions had little effect on my life. 7.3%

The interactions had somewhat of an effect on me but did not disrupt my life. 57.7%

The interactions disrupted my life for a short while. 25.2%

The interactions disrupted my life in a significant or devastating way, but I no longer feel that way. 4.9%

The interactions had a significant or devastating effect on me that I still feel. 4.9%

4. Exposure to suicide: workplace supportWhen asked to reflect on whether their workplace was aware of the impact that communicating about suicide could have, and whether supports were available, more than half indicated that their workplace was aware and there were supports available. In just over one-quarter of cases people indicated that there were no workplace supports available.

Table 8: Workplace awareness and support. (n=246)

The workplace is not aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff and there no support provided. 18.3%

The workplace is not aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff but there is support provided. 13.8%

The workplace is aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff but there is no support provided. 10.2%

The workplace is aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff and there is support provided. 57.7%

5. Exposure to Mindframe

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

YES

NO

Figure 13. Awareness of Mindframe (%)?

About one-third (32%) of the respondents were aware Mindframe. Of those who were aware of the Initiative, the website (61.3%) was the resource referred to or used the most.

Resources used or referred to* (n=80)

Resource book for media 33.8%

Other sector resource book 21.3%

University material for public relations students 12.5%

Mindframe website 61.3%

Mindframe app 6.3%

Never used 28.8%

* Participants could select more than one option

Table 9: Use of Mindframe resources.

5. Exposure to Mindframe

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Figure 14. How have you been exposed to Mindframe resources (%)? (all that apply)

On social media

In my workplace

Not exposed

Mindframe briefing or training

Mindframe email alerts

When asked to indicate how they became exposed to Mindframe, almost half of the participants indicated they were exposed via social media, a third had resources available in their workplace and about a quarter had received Mindframe training and/or alerts.

5. Comments provided about Mindframe“More promotion of the resources”

“Greater availability of face-to-face briefing sessions”“Practical and accessible”

“I don't work in a field that needs them”“I have not been aware of them but believe any resources will be extremely beneficial”

“We had a seminar run by Mindframe and it was really terrific”“Could be more follow up after certain stories to remind journalists”

“Provides guidance and reassurance when dealing with this sensitive issue”“I support the sensitive reporting on suicide, just not so much how it's been done to date”

“For public relations and media today, they would be an excellent resource”“Given my own personal experience of suicide, I am very cognisant of the related issues…”

“The issue doesn't come up in my current job. The resources are excellent”“Given I don't have to develop communications around suicide I have not been exposed to Mindframe”

“It's a great initiative that is attempting to reframe the mindset of suicide in the media” “I am constantly referring journalists to the Mindframe resources”

“Accessibility is great, knowing that they're evidence-based, consistent. But more thinking/research about refining messages or message subsets would be useful”

“We must report on suicide - the details and specifics. Mindframe appears to be of the view that [it] should not…”

“The Mindframe resources are very important…”

Support services Services are available to anyone needing immediate support.

Contact Us:Email:

mindframe@hnehealth.nsw.gov.auhimh@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au

Twitter:@HInstMH

@MindframeMedia

Websites: www.himh.org.au

www.mindframe-media.info