Suicide among older adults: Interactions among key risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to understand how key risk factors of older adult suicide interact to ultimately lead to death by suicide using data collected post-mortem. METHOD: A psychological autopsy was used to gather detailed information about psychiatric diagnosis, medical problems, social isolation, and negative attitudes expressed by the individual during the six months prior to their death. Interviews with next-of-kin, medical and psychiatric records, and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics were used. Subjects included 32 older adults who died by suicide and 45 older adults who died by natural causes. RESULTS: Hopelessness, depression, and negative health attitudes were strongly correlated with suicide. Older age was associated with social isolation, suggesting an indirect relationship with suicide via hopelessness, depression, and negative health attitudes. Physical illness did not increase risk. Multivariate analyses suggested that hopelessness fully mediated the effects of social isolation, negative health attitudes, and depression on suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological factors played the largest role in suicide deaths compared to social isolation and physical illness. Suicide interventions aimed at older adults should ensure hopelessness, depression, and negative health attitudes are primary targets.

A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review.

Ethics Review began a decade ago with a mission to identify ethical concerns that hold back innovation and to promote solutions that would move the field forward. Over this time, blood biomarkers for brain pathology and medications that treat that pathology promise to transform research and care. A central problem is that the evidence needed to guide test interpretation and practice is accumulating and there are unanswered questions. At the same time, people living with and at risk for dementia want access to their test results and involvement in their care. We promote dialog among diverse people across many institutions through collaboration with the Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia.org). Over the years Ethics Review continues to publish these dialogs and solutions to overcome the paralysis of indecision and ethical concerns.

The Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia: Multidisciplinary and Open to All.

The brain changes of Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative dementias begin long before cognitive dysfunction develops, and in people with subtle cognitive complaints, clinicians often struggle to predict who will develop dementia. The public increasingly sees benefits to accessing dementia risk evidence (DRE) such as biomarkers, predictive algorithms, and genetic information, particularly as this information moves from research to demonstrated usefulness in guiding diagnosis and clinical management. For example, the knowledge that one has high levels of amyloid in the brain may lead one to seek amyloid reducing medications, plan for disability, or engage in health promoting behaviors to fight cognitive decline. Researchers often hesitate to share DRE data, either because they are insufficiently validated or reliable for use in individuals, or there are concerns about assuring responsible use and ensuring adequate understanding of potential problems when one's biomarker status is known. Concerns include warning people receiving DRE about situations in which they might be compelled to disclose their risk status potentially leading to discrimination or stigma. The Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia) welcomes all concerned with how best to share and use DRE. Supporting understanding in clinicians, stakeholders, and people with or at risk for dementia and clearly delineating risks, benefits, and gaps in knowledge is vital. This brief overview describes elements that made this group effective as a model for other health conditions where there is interest in unfettered collaboration to discuss diagnostic uncertainty and the appropriate use and communication of health-related risk information.