Are suicides underreported? The impact of coroners versus medical examiners on suicide reporting

13Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate if state death investigation systems affect the reporting of suicides, particularly when comparing medical examiners to coroners. Data Sources and Study Setting: We used restricted-access state mortality data from National Vital Statistics System between the years 1959 to 2016. These data were matched with state-level changes in death investigation systems reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database on the Public Health Law Program: Coroner/ME Laws. Study Design: We used difference-in-differences and event study methods for the analysis. We estimated the relative per capita changes in suicides, accidental deaths, and homicides when comparing coroner-only states with other death investigation types. Sub-analyses estimated differences by sex, race, and if coroners were required to receive training. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Not Applicable. Principal Findings: Coroners-only states underreported suicides by 17.4% (p < 0.05) and performed 20.4% (p < 0.05) fewer autopsies compared to states with county coroners and a state medical examiner. This pattern is consistent by sex and race. Required coroner training did not affect death determination significantly. Conclusion: Coroners-only states underreported suicides compared to states with county coroners and a state medical examiner. The disparity in the use of autopsies is a potential mechanism for underreporting of suicides by coroners. If all coroners-only states adopted a state medical examiner, suicide reporting would increase by 2243–3100 deaths in the United States annually.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fernandez, J. M., & Jayawardhana, J. (2025). Are suicides underreported? The impact of coroners versus medical examiners on suicide reporting. Health Services Research, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14381

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free