Data on death rates for suicide, by selected population characteristics. Please refer to the PDF or Excel version of this table in the HUS 2019 Data Finder (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2019.htm) for critical information about measures, definitions, and changes over time. SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System (NVSS); Grove RD, Hetzel AM. Vital statistics rates in the United States, 1940–1960. National Center for Health Statistics. 1968; numerator data from NVSS annual public-use Mortality Files; denominator data from U.S. Census Bureau national population estimates; and Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Arias E, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2018. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 13. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm. For more information on the National Vital Statistics System, see the corresponding Appendix entry at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus19-appendix-508.pdf.

This report provides information regarding suicide mortality for the years 2001–2014. It incorporates the most recent mortality data from the VA/Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Suicide Data Repository and includes information for deaths from suicide among all known Veterans of U.S. military service. Data for the Joint VA/DoD Suicide Data Repository were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Death Index through collaboration with the DoD, the CDC, and the VA/DoD Joint Suicide Data Repository initiative. Data available from the National Death Index include reports of mortality submitted from vital statistics systems in all 50 U.S. states, New York City, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Mortality rate has been age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. ICD-10 codes used to identify suicides are X60-X84, Y87.0, and U03. Single-year data are only available for Los Angeles County overall, Service Planning Areas, Supervisorial Districts, City of Los Angeles overall, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts.Suicide is a leading cause of preventable death in Los Angeles County, affecting individuals of all ages and races and ethnicities. While there is a strong association between suicide and health conditions, such as mood and anxiety disorders or substance use disorders, suicide is rarely caused by a single circumstance and is more often due to a combination of individual, relational, and environmental factors. Individual factors can include history of mental illness, previous suicide attempts, adverse childhood events, or financial hardship. Relational factors include experiences of bullying, loss of relationships, or social isolation. Environmental factors include lack of access to healthcare, community violence, or social stigma associated with seeking help for a mental illness.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Dataset Card for "vibhorag101/suicide_prediction_dataset_phr"

The dataset is sourced from Reddit and is available on Kaggle. The dataset contains text with binary labels for suicide or non-suicide.
The dataset was cleaned and following steps were applied Converted to lowercase Removed numbers and special characters. Removed URLs, Emojis and accented characters. Removed any word contractions. Remove any extra white spaces and any extra spaces after a single space. Removed any… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/fioriclass/suicide_prediction_dataset_phr.

These data represent the Age-Adjusted Colorado Census Tract Mortality Rate Per 100,000 Persons for Suicide as the Underlying Cause of Death (2015-2019). Population estimates for the denominator are calculated from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. These data are from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Vital Records Death Dataset and are published annually by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Data on death rates for suicide in the United States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Data are from Health, United States. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality File. Search, visualize, and download these and other estimates from over 120 health topics with the NCHS Data Query System (DQS), available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dataquery/index.htm.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:10 PM EASTERN ON MARCH 24

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California as a whole based on information entered on death certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out-of-state deaths to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all deaths that occurred during the time period. Deaths involving injuries from external or environmental forces, such as accidents, homicide and suicide, often require additional investigation that tends to delay certification of the cause and manner of death. This can result in significant under-reporting of these deaths in provisional data.

The final data tables include both deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by age, gender, race-ethnicity, and death place type. Deaths due to all causes (ALL) and selected underlying cause of death categories are provided. See temporal coverage for more information on which combinations are available for which years.

The cause of death categories are based solely on the underlying cause of death as coded by the International Classification of Diseases. The underlying cause of death is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury." It is a single value assigned to each death based on the details as entered on the death certificate. When more than one cause is listed, the order in which they are listed can affect which cause is coded as the underlying cause. This means that similar events could be coded with different underlying causes of death depending on variations in how they were entered. Consequently, while underlying cause of death provides a convenient comparison between cause of death categories, it may not capture the full impact of each cause of death as it does not always take into account all conditions contributing to the death.

Detailed listing of all U.S. Military Active Duty deaths for 2009

This dataset is about countries per year and is filtered where the country includes United States, featuring 5 columns: agricultural land, alternative and nuclear energy, armed forces personnel, birth rate, and suicide mortality rate. The preview is ordered by date (descending).

The National Survey of American Life Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A), 2001-2004, was designed to estimate the lifetime-to-date and current prevalence, age-of-onset distributions, course, and comorbidity of DSM-IV disorders among African American and Caribbean adolescents in the United States; to identify risk and protective factors for the onset and persistence of these disorders; to describe patterns and correlates of service use for these disorders; and to lay the groundwork for subsequent follow-up studies that can be used to identify early expressions of adult mental disorders. In addition and similar to the NSAL adult dataset (Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), 2001-2003 United States), the adolescent dataset contains detailed measures of health; social conditions; stressors; distress; racial identity; subjective, neighborhood conditions; activities and school; media; and social and psychological protective and risk factors. Numerous variables from the adult dataset have been merged into the adolescent dataset, as the NSAL adult and adolescent respondents reside in the same households. Some of these variables apply to the entire household (i.e. region, urbanicity, and family income), while others apply specifically to the NSAL adult respondent living in the adolescent's household (i.e. adult years of education, adult marital status, and adult nativity [foreign-born vs. US born]). The immigration measures were asked of Caribbean black adult respondents only. No comparable measures assess the immigration and generational status of the Caribbean black adolescent respondents. The adult dataset measures are merged into the adolescent dataset to assist in approximating these measures for adolescent respondents. The NSAL adolescent dataset also includes variables for other non-core and experimental disorders. These include tobacco use/nicotine dependence, premenstrual syndrome, minor depression, recurrent brief depression, hypomania, and hypomania sub-threshold. Demographic variables include age, race and ethnicity, ancestry or national origins, height, weight, marital status, income, and education level.

This study was initiated by the administrator of a county jail in the Northern Plains of the United States who was concerned about the incidence of suicide behaviors in that facility, particularly among the American Indian population. It was a two-year project designed to evaluate the existing admissions suicide screening tool and to improve the instrument's cultural relevance for the American Indian population. The existing screening instrument used in the county jail to interview inmates at their intake was developed in New York. The main objective of the first year of the project was to determine if that instrument was culturally appropriate for the jailed American Indian population. The principal objective of the second year of the project was to determine whether the employment of different suicide screening protocols would make a difference in the responses of new detainees with regard to the likelihood of securing their honest reports of experiencing suicide ideation and its associated risk factors. For the duration of the project, all male and female inmates aged 18 and older who were booked into the jail went through the customary booking procedure that included the administration of the New York Suicide Prevention Screening Guidelines. In the first year of the project, researchers also administered a short self-report survey consisting of measures commonly associated with suicidal ideation. The self-report survey measured stress, anxiety, suicide ideation, hopelessness, and suicidal behavior history. The protocols in the second year of the project reflected efforts to test different screening conditions for four experimental groups and one control group of new detainees. The outcome variables of the short self-report survey consisted of measures of demographics, comfort experience during booking and the screening process, self-efficacy and management of depression, knowledge of mental health support available within the jail, and general well-being. In addition to the quantitative data collection, qualitative data were also collected to develop a straightforward assessment of suicide ideation criteria in this specific jail setting using semi-structured focus group interviews.

Articles from a literature search were identified that made an assertion (claim) about the annual rate of U.S. physicians who die of suicide. Data extracted included: article (or resource) type, title, authors, DOI or HTTP URI, publication year, claim (about annual physician suicide rate), data of last access of the article (e.g. for a webpage), and cited articles in support of the claim. Using Nanobench, a Java based end-user tool that allows for browsing and publishing of nanopublications, nanopublications representing the claims were created.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year. DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit. The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.This study has 1 Data Set.

Medium/Small metropolitan counties: Model performance comparison.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DICRA) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to submit to the U.S. attorney general, information about the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or in the process of being arrested by a federal law enforcement officer (or by a state or local law enforcement officer while participating in a federal law enforcement operation, task force, or other capacity) being transported to, incarcerated at, or detained at any facility (including immigration or juvenile facilities) pursuant to a contract with a federal law enforcement agency, state or local government facility used by a federal law enforcement agency, or federal correctional or pre-trial detention facility located within the United States (Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, P.L. 113-242). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DICRA. This data collection includes the 2017 Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (CJ-13A) data and the 2017 Detention/Incarceration Incident Report (CJ-13B) data.