Attitude Towards Suicide And The Relative Factors Between Urban And Rural Residents In Xuchang City

Objective:To understand the mental health status of urban and rural residents in Xuchang city, explore their attitude towards suicide and relative influencing factors from the perspective of multiple factors, and provide basic data and scientific theory for the study of suicide prevention program.Method:Between January and October in 2008, the total of 1004 residents of 8 communities in urban and 6 villages in rural of Xuchang city were randomly sampled and investigated. By taking statistical analysis of scale, the attitude towards suicide and the relative factors between urban and rural residents could be investigated. And a multiple stepwise regression analysis was used to identify the residents'attitude about suicide and its influencing factors.Results:1 Attitude to similarity between attempted suicide and committed suicide (Fl)Both urban and rural residents gave priority to the agreement to similarity between attempted suicide and committed suicide, which accounted for 70.1% and 66.1% respectively. Secondly, there were 15.8% neutral in urban, and 18.8% opposition in rural. In urban, chi-square test showed that F1 was associated with the factors of living status, medical sources, marital status and family economy (χ2=7.52,9.36, 73.21,6.5, P<0.05). Multiple regression analysis showed that F1 had correlation with medical sources and marital status (R2=0.018). In rural, F1 was associated with the factors of income sources (χ2=206.7, P<0.01), and F1 had correlation with income sources and marital status (R2=0.017).2 Attitude to suicide that could not be prevented (F2)In urban and rural residents,57.2% and 51.7% opposed,23.4% and 28.1% agreed, and 19.5% and 20.2% were neutral respectively. In urban, F2 was associated with the factors of income sources, religious belief and whether physical illness or injury could affect daily activities or working in nearly a month (χ2=225.76,4.75,7.83, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F2 had correlation with whether physical illness or injury could affect daily activities or working in nearly a month (R2=0.009). In rural, F2 was associated with the factors of working conditions and income sources (χ2=11.8,306.2, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F2 had correlation with marital status (R2=0.014).3 Attitude to suicide that could not be self-controlled (F3)In urban and rural residents,55.1% and 58.3% opposed,37.3% and 36.4% agreed, and 7.6% and 5.2% were neutral respectively. In urban, F3 was associated with the factors of working conditions and income sources (χ2=11.97,164.39, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F3 had correlation with medical sources and income sources (R2=0.019). In rural, F3 was associated with the factors of working conditions, living status, medical sources, income sources and whether physical illness or injury could affect daily activities or working in nearly a month (χ2=41.35, 6.16,8.09,364.2,6.13, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F3 had correlation with marital status, medical sources and income sources (R2=0.044).4 Discrimination against suicide (F4)In urban and rural residents,84.8% and 76.7% agreed,8.8% and 13.2% opposed, and 6.4% and 10.1% were neutral respectively. In urban, F4 was associated with the factors of working conditions, medical sources and income sources (χ2=12.27,10.57, 63.34, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F4 had correlation with medical sources (R2=0.017). In rural, F4 was associated with the factors of working conditions, income sources and religious belief (χ2=20.15,179.03,7.26, P<0.01), and multiple regression analysis showed that F4 had correlation with income sources, marital status and religious belief (R2=0.065).5 Positive attitude to suicide (F5)In urban and rural residents,51% and 55% opposed,28.7% and 27.9% agreed, and 20.3% and 17.1% were neutral respectively. In urban, F5 was associated with the factors of income sources and family economy (χ2=218.56,6.48, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F5 had correlation with income sources (R2=0.011). In rural, F5 was associated with the factors of working conditions and income sources (χ2=36.7,374.9, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F5 had correlation with marital status and income sources (R2=0.047).6 Attitude to suicide that could change the level of suicidal behavior of others (F6)In urban and rural residents,47.3% and 42.8% agreed,32.4% and 35.3% opposed, and 20.3% and 21.9% were neutral respectively. In urban, F6 was associated with the factors of working conditions, medical sources and income sources (χ2=22.07,6.24, 176.48, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F6 had correlation with medical sources and marital status (R2=0.032). In rural, F6 was associated with the factors of working conditions, marital status and income sources (χ2=44.61,11.1, 294.8, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F6 had correlation with income sources, marital status and living status (R2=0.057).7 Attitude to social importance of suicide (F7)In urban and rural residents,91.8% and 84.5% agreed,4.5% and 10.9% opposed, and 3.7% and 4.7% were neutral respectively. In urban, F7 was associated with the factors of working conditions, living status, medical sources and income sources (χ2=11.38, 10.6,4.23,90, P<0.05), and multiple regression analysis showed that F7 had correlation with medical sources and income sources (R2=0.023). In rural, F7 was associated with the factors of working conditions and income sources (χ2=17.65, 150.6, P<0.01), and multiple regression analysis showed that F7 had correlation with income sources (R2=0.021).Conclusion:1 The difference of attitude towards suicide between urban and rural residents was not obvious overall. They held agreed attitude in similarity between attempted suicide and committed suicide (F1), discrimination against suicide (F4), attitude to suicide that could change the level of suicidal behavior of others (F6) and attitude to social importance of suicide (F7); On the other hand, they held attitude of opposition in attitude to suicide that could not be prevented (F2), attitude to suicide that could not be self-controlled (F3) and positive attitude to suicide (F5).2 There were some differences between urban and rural residents in attitude towards discrimination against suicide and attitude to social importance of suicide. It showed that the understanding extent of urban residents was higher than in rural residents in attitude towards discrimination against suicide (F4) and attitude to social importance of suicide (F7).3 The influential factors of attitude towards suicide were different between urban and rural residents. It showed that medical sources were main factors in affecting urban attitudes towards suicide; income sources and marital status were main factors in affecting rural attitude towards suicide. However, the effect was little.