Every year, around 1,500 people take their own lives in Sweden. Behind every statistic is a human being, a family, a community – and a tragedy that affects far more people than the individual who dies.
Suicide is not only a personal tragedy – it is also a socio-economic concern. Recent studies show that prevention can save lives and significantly reduce costs for society.
Björn Sund, adjunct teacher in economics at Karlstad Business School and analyst at the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), has conducted research on efforts to reduce suicides in the transport sector.
– There are very few published economic evaluations of suicide prevention, and those that do exist vary in terms of methodology, says Björn. At the same time, it’s a serious societal problem surrounded by many myths. That is why we wanted to contribute new knowledge about individuals’ values, society’s costs and the evaluation of measures related to this issue.
The research has been funded by the Swedish Transport Administration and carried out by four economists. In addition to Björn Sund, the project includes Elin Vimefall at Örebro University, Elina Lampi at the University of Gothenburg and Linda Ryen at the University Health Care Research Center, Region Örebro.
What is the cost of a suicide to the transport sector?
– On the railways alone, around 82 people die each year, of which 90 per cent are suicides. Unauthorised persons on the tracks lead to thousands of train delays, cancelled departures and extensive interventions from the emergency and healthcare services, says Björn Sund. The total cost amounts to about SEK 1.5 billion per year, and most of this consists of indirect costs such as production downtime and delays. Direct costs, such as medical care and rescue operations, account for only a few per cent.
The research group has also investigated how people view suicide prevention compared with preventing fatal traffic accidents.
– The findings are thought-provoking – avoiding fatal accidents is generally valued more highly than suicide, says Björn. We also see that avoiding the death of younger people is valued more highly than that of older people, which comes as no surprise. But age also matters in combination with the type of incident. We see no difference in the valuation of preventing a fatal accident or a suicide for people under 45. In other words, it’s the valuation of the older age groups that accounts for the difference between preventing fatal accidents and preventing suicides.
What happens if protective barriers are installed on bridges, for example?
– An economic evaluation of suicide-prevention barriers shows that the benefits are six times greater than the costs. Of course, both benefits and costs vary between different bridges depending on factors such as the length of the bridge, the initial risk of suicide and the effectiveness of the barrier. However, the majority of outcomes indicate a positive socio-economic effect.
As an employee at MSB, Björn Sund has taken a particular interest in studying the effect of shortening the emergency services’ response time in cases of potential suicide cases. It has been shown that the response time is crucial for survival in most types of incidents, and that many lives could be saved each year if the response were faster.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from your research?
– Suicide prevention is not only a matter of ethics and compassion – it also offers the potential for socio-economically sound investments, says Björn. Every suicide prevented saves society vast sums. Mental illness and suicide are major societal problems, and it’s important that decisions in these areas are not guided by myths. We hope that our research and the knowledge it has generated can make a contribution in this respect.
