Sociodemographic and psychosocial risk factors of railway suicide: a mixed-methods study combining data of all suicide decedents in the Netherlands with data from a psychosocial autopsy study

Background Railway suicide has profound implications for the victims and their family, and affects train drivers, railway personnel, emergency services and witnesses. To inform a multilevel prevention strategy, more knowledge is required about psychosocial and precipitating risk factors of railway suicide. Methods Data from Statistics Netherlands of all suicides between 2017 and 2021 ( n = 9.241) of whom 986 died by railway suicide and interview data from a psychosocial autopsy of railway suicide decedents ( n = 39) were integrated. We performed logistic regression analyses to identify sociodemographic predictors of railway suicide compared to other methods of suicide. The Constant Comparative Method was subsequently employed on interview data from the psychosocial autopsy to identify patterns in psychosocial risk factors for railway suicide. Results The strongest predictors of railway suicide compared to other suicide methods were young age (< 30 years old), native Dutch, a high educational level, living in a multi-person household (especially living with parents or in an institution), living in a rural area and a high annual household income of > 150.000 euros. Several subgroups emerged in the psychosocial autopsy interviews, which specifically reflect populations at risk of railway suicide. These subgroups were [1] young adult males with autism spectrum disorder who strived for more autonomy and an independent life, [2] young adult females with persistent suicidal thoughts and behaviours, [3] middle-aged males with a persistent mood disorder who lived with family and who faced stressors proximal to the suicide in personal and professional settings, [4] male out-of-the-blue suicides and [5] persons with psychotic symptoms and a rapid deterioration. Conclusions based on our findings we propose and discuss several recommendations to prevent railway suicide. We must continue to invest in a safe railway environment by training personnel and installing barriers. Additionally, we should adopt prevention strategies that align the needs of subgroups at increased risk, including young females who have attempted other methods of suicide and young males with autism spectrum disorder. Future research should determine the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of low-maintenance, automated interventions near crossings and psychiatric facilities.