Search

Emerging data from high and upper-middle-income countries indicate that suicide rates generally did not increase during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the pandemic’s impact on suicide is complex. We discuss the nuances of this relationship, how it may evolve over time, and describe the specific steps that governments and societies must take to mitigate harm and prevent suicides in the late stages and aftermath of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a major global health challenge. At the time of writing, over 11.6 million people around the world had been registered as infected and 538,000 had died (Worldometers, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020). Public health responses to COVID-19 need to balance direct efforts to control the disease and its impact on health systems, infected people, and their families with the impacts from associated mitigating interventions. Such impacts include social isolation, school closure, health service disruption stemming from reconfiguring health systems, and diminished economic activity. The primary focus of both the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) has been on addressing COVID-19 as a physical health crisis, but the need to strengthen mental health action, including suicide prevention, is increasingly recognized, as is the need for mental health research to be an integral part of the recovery plan (UN, 2020a). The impacts of the pandemic on physical and mental health will unfold differently over time and will vary depending on the duration and fluctuating intensity of the disease. Research is needed to help ensure that decision-making regarding all aspects of health, including mental health (Holmes et al., 2020), is informed by the best quality data at each stage of the pandemic. The pandemic poses a prolonged and unique challenge to public mental health, with major implications for suicide and suicide prevention (Gunnell et al., 2020; Reger, Stanley, & Joiner, 2020). A rise in suicide deaths in the wake of the pandemic is not inevitable. There is consensus, however, that the mitigation of risk will be contingent upon a proactive and effective response involving collaborative work between the state, NGOs, academia, and local governments and coordinated leadership across government ministries, including health, education, security, social services, welfare, and finance. Countries have responded in different ways to the pandemic, effectively creating a series of natural experiments. Thus, regions of the world affected later in the pandemic can draw on lessons from countries, such as China and Italy, affected in its early phase. Likewise, lessons learned early in the pandemic (e.g., on the impact of lockdown and physical distancing measures) can be used to inform responses to any future surges in the incidence of COVID-19. Although there are important parallels between countries in the course of the pandemic, some stressors, responses, and priorities are likely to differ between high- and low–middle-income countries and between cultures and regions. As COVID-19 appears to be disproportionately affecting Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities, the response – and suicide prevention research carried out to inform the response – needs to be sufficiently granular and account for the complexity of risks in these groups (O'Connor et al., 2020). Throughout this editorial, when we refer to suicide and suicidal behavior, we mean to include both fatal and nonfatal suicidal behaviors and self-harm.

More than 150,000 in Europe and 800,000 people worldwide, die every year by suicide (WHO, 2015), accounting for 1·4% of all annual deaths. Suicide is the second, and in some European countries even the first leading cause of death amongst young people aged 15-24 years (WHO, 2015), thus exceeding the number of accidental deaths.The European parliament resolution on Mental Health 2008/2209 (INI) adopted a series of recommendations for European member states. It proposed areas for priority action as defined in the European Pact on Mental Health and Well-Being. Recently, 29 suicide prevention experts from 17 European countries (The Task Force for the European Evidence-Based Suicide Prevention Program, EESPP) performed a systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions that has been published over the last decade. During three face-to-face meetings, the EESPP group developed a consensus declaration that, based on the findings of the systematic reviews, summarizes the minimal requirements for a national suicide prevention programs and of the strategies to employ.

The Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) for psychotropic drugs was developed as an alternative to the current Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) indication-based classification in order to provide more precise designations for this drug class. The ATC nomenclature for psychotherapeutics is limited in that it fails to specify either pharmacological domains or mechanism of action and also does not describe all the potential uses of a particular agent. The disconnect between the drug classification and its clinical use is not very useful for scientific purposes and is confusing for patients and caregivers, often leading to a misunderstanding of the intended effects of the prescribed medication and, most importantly, to low treatment adherence. The NbN classifies psychopharmacological agents on the basis of contemporary scientific information on their pharmacology and mechanisms of action so as to provide physicians clear alternatives when selecting or altering therapeutic regimens. The classification of each psychotropic drug includes four additional dimensions: approved indications; efficacy and side effects; practical note; neurobiology. By emphasizing the pharmacology and the molecular mechanism of action, NbN provides a vehicle for clinicians and basic scientists to improve the understanding and clinical use of this important drug class.