Malaysian Stakeholder Perspectives on Suicide-Related Reporting: Findings From Focus Group Discussions

Abstract

Media guidelines on safe suicide-related reporting are within the suicide prevention armamentarium. However, implementation issues beleaguer real-world practice. This study evaluated the perspectives of the Malaysian media community, persons with lived experience of suicidal behavior (PLE), and mental health professionals (MHP) on suicide-related reporting in terms of the impact, strategies, challenges, and the implementation of guidelines on safe reporting. Three focus group discussions of purposively sampled Malaysian media practitioners (n = 8), PLE (n = 6), and MHP (n = 7) were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and thematically analyzed. Inclusion criteria were: English fluency, no clinical depression or suicidal ideation (current), no recent previous suicide attempts or suicide bereavement. Three major themes emerged: (1) Unsafe Reporting; (2) Impact; and (3) Safe Reporting. Most described current reporting as unsafe by being potentially triggering to media users and may contribute to contagion effect. Positive impacts identified included raised awareness toward suicide and its prevention. Unsafe reporting was attributed to inadequate awareness, knowledge, and guidance, lack of empathy and accountability, job-related factors, popularity-seeking, lack of monitoring and governance, and information source(s) with unsafe content. Majority agreed on how suicide stories should be framed to produce a safe report. The media community diverged on how detailed a suicide story should be. Safe reporting challenges included difficulties in balancing beneficial versus harmful details, social media ubiquity and its citizen reporters. Participants suggested these safe reporting strategies: stakeholder engagement, educational approaches, improving governance and surveillance, and guidelines revision. Most acknowledged the relevance of guidelines but were unaware of the existence of local guidelines. Implementation challenges included the dilemma in balancing media industry needs vis-à-vis safe reporting requirements, stakeholder engagement difficulties and social media regulation. There is poor awareness regarding safe suicide-related reporting across all groups. PLE and MHP were negatively impacted by current unsafe messaging which aggravated trauma and grief reactions. Postvention support gaps for mental health professionals were highlighted. Safe reporting promotion strategies should include stakeholder engagement to increase awareness on minimizing Werther and maximizing Papageno effects. Strategic re-examination and dissemination of local media guidelines to address new media issues, and effective surveillance mechanisms, are crucial in sustainable improvement of safe reporting practices.

Looking Into Recent Suicide Rates and Trends in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis

“…Malaysian media guidelines for safe media reporting of suicide were developed in 2004. However, Victor et al ( 39 ) and Ng et al ( 40 ) highlighted the lack of awareness and adherence to the guidelines. Current community-based safe messaging advocacy initiatives include capacity-building workshops, public forums and social media interactions by health professionals, people with lived experience, media professionals, academics and media industry regulatory bodies.…”

Efficient operation and maintenance (O&M) framework in managing stratified residential properties

“…The FGD considers the best practice conduct of FGD as suggested by Mishra (2016) and Ng et al (2021): effective planning and organization of events; being receptive and adaptable to others’ viewpoints; and possessing strong management skills. …”

“…The size of the focus group is determined by the complexity of the subject and the moderator’s ability. A skilled moderator should be well-versed in the subject being discussed or an expert (Mishra, 2016; Ng et al , 2021).…”

Technical and Social Approaches to Study Shoreline Change of Kuakata, Bangladesh

“…The PRA employed here relies on field observations and group meetings with communities and stakeholders, such as fisherman, farmers, small business owners, and tourism-related employees. More specifically, PRA verifies the results through a transect walk (Dooley et al, 2018;Schäffler et al, 2021), timeline (historical mapping) analysis (Mueller et al, 2010;Tomlinson et al, 2018), cause and effect diagram (Holme and Chalauisaeng, 2006;Saja et al, 2021), key informant interview (KII; Chenais et al, 2015;Balgah, 2016;Nicholson and Valentine, 2019;Dureab et al, 2021;Roothaert et al, 2021), and focus group discussion (FGD; Shamsuddin et al, 2007;Ng et al, 2021). These tools emphasize the following questions: What is the perception about shoreline change along the coast of Kuakata?…”