Deaths by suicide, by socioeconomic areas Print this page

There is a strong association between socioeconomic status and deaths by suicide. Age-standardised rates and numbers of deaths by suicide tend to be higher for those living in lower socioeconomic areas (more disadvantaged areas). However, it is important to remember that suicide can affect all Australians and each person’s experience is unique; not everyone who lives in these areas will experience suicidal behaviours.

Socioeconomic status classifies individuals according to the socioeconomic characteristics of the area in which they lived prior to their death by suicide. These areas are defined using the ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD), which reflects the average level of socioeconomic disadvantage of the area, rather than individuals (see Technical notes for more information). Variables used in calculating the IRSD index include household income, unemployment and levels of education.

Highest rates of suicide occur in lowest socioeconomic areas

From 2010 to 2021, age-standardised suicide rates were highest for those who lived in the lowest socioeconomic areas (most disadvantaged areas), and generally decreased as the level of disadvantage lessened.

In 2021, the overall suicide rate for people living in the lowest socioeconomic (most disadvantaged) areas (18.4 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 1) was more than twice that of those living in the highest socioeconomic (least disadvantaged) areas (8.1 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 5).

As for rates, the number of deaths by suicide for the 5 socioeconomic areas generally declined as socioeconomic disadvantage decreased.

Suicide rates increased over time in lowest socioeconomic areas

Age-standardised suicide rates increased for those living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 1) from 13.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2010 to a peak of 19.4 in 2017, before falling gradually to 18.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2021. In contrast, little change was observed for those living in the the 2 highest socioeconomic areas (Quintiles 4 and 5).

Henley and Harrison (2019) found that over the period 2009–10 to 2015–16, suicide rates increased significantly for those living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (most disadvantaged) by an average 3.5% per year while little change was observed for those in the highest (least disadvantaged) socioeconomic areas (0.2% change per year).

Methods of suicide vary by socioeconomic area

The classification system used to code causes of deaths data, ICD-10, uses the term ‘mechanism’ to refer to the external cause of death. Throughout Suicide & self-harm monitoring ‘mechanism’ has been used in data visualisations, while the term ‘method’ has been used in the accompanying text.

Throughout 2010 to 2021, age-standardised suicide rates generally decreased with decreasing socioeconomic disadvantage, for hanging (ICD-10 X70) and firearms (ICD-10 X72–X75).  However, there was little difference in suicide rates between socioeconomic areas for poisoning excluding gas (ICD-10 X60–X66, X68–X69), poisoning by gas (ICD-10 X67) or other methods (ICD-10 X71, X76–X84, Y87.0).

In 2021, the rate of suicide by hanging for those living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 1) was 2.7 times higher than that of those living in the highest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 5) (12.5 vs 4.7 deaths per 100,000 population). For firearms, poisoning by gas, exposure to poisonous substances excluding gas and other methods of suicide there was little variation between the highest and lowest socioeconomic areas in 2021.

The proportion of deaths by suicide by either exposure to poisonous substances excluding gas or other methods tended to increase with decreasing socioeconomic disadvantage while the proportion of deaths by hanging tended to decrease.

Reference

AIHW: Henley G & Harrison JE 2019. Injury mortality and socioeconomic influence in Australia, 2015–16. Injury research and statistics series no. 128. Cat. no. INJCAT 208. Canberra: AIHW.