Active Duty Army Suicide Attempts Analyzed

Researchers gathered data from various Army databases to analyze nearly 10,000 attempted suicides of active duty personnel. Cynthia Graber reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On average, every day one active duty member of the military and 22 veterans commit suicide. And from 2005 to 2009, Army suicide attempts and suicides rose sharply. In an attempt to figure out how to focus early interventions, a team of researchers has pulled together data from various Army databases to analyze nearly 10,000 attempted suicides of active duty Army personnel.

The first major point they make is that enlisted soldiers, not officers, attempt suicides at higher rates. Enlisted soldiers represent about 83 percent of the Army, but make up nearly 99 percent of the suicide attempts.

Narrowing in on the data, the researchers determined that females were more than twice as likely as males to attempt suicide. Also at higher risk: soldiers who entered the army at age 25 or older. And suicides were higher for those who’d never been deployed or those who were home from deployment than for those who were currently deployed.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Suicides were highest in the first two years of service, particularly the first year. And among soldiers who attempted suicide, more than half had received a mental health-related diagnosis in the previous month. The study is in the journal JAMA Psychiatry. [Robert J. Ursano et al, Suicide Attempts in the US Army During the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2004 to 2009]

One limitation of the study, the researchers acknowledge, is that it only includes data from the Army’s own health care system. So it lacks information about suicides or attempts handled by civilian facilities, as well as unreported attempts. The study authors recommend that future research should focus on determining the individuals at greatest risk. This preliminary assessment could still help target assistance and prevention programs to soldiers who need it most.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe