Using National Databases to Analyze Nurse Suicide Mortality

Evidence suggests nurses in the United States experience disproportionate risk for suicide and additional research is important. Additional research is significant, in part, as there is variability across existing studies that have examined nurse suicide in the U.S. Specifically, there are differences with respect to nursing definitions and age parameters, and limited data on sex differences, race, ethnicity, and state details.

The aim of this article is to explore how national databases may be used to examine suicide among nurses in an increasingly systematic manner.

National Occupational Mortality Surveillance (NOMS), National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), and National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) data codebooks were downloaded and reviewed in their entirety. Each supplemental data source was also reviewed in its entirety. Items of interest included variables that would address existing research gaps and facilitate increasingly systematic examination of suicide among nurses in the U.S. (i.e., manner of death, underlying cause of death, usual occupation, education, sex, age, race, ethnicity, and state details).

Taken together, national databases may permit differentiated analyses of various nursing professionals with different levels of education and training. National databases may also allow customized age parameters, facilitating analyses of nursing professionals within a specified age criterion. National databases often also include data on sex, race, ethnicity, and state details, providing opportunities to increasingly address research gaps. However, only the NVDRS provides opportunities to differentiate between working and non-working nurses, though these distinctions may be difficult and may yield incomplete information.

More generally, national databases include variables and coding procedures that may facilitate increasingly systematic examination of nurse suicide. While limitations persist, particularly regarding mortality data, systematic evaluations are vital for clarifying conflicting evidence, addressing research gaps, and building the evidence base.