From the Editor

The stakes are high: news coverage of suicide can affect suicide rates. So how responsibly do journalists report? How has this changed with time?

In a new paper for The British Journal of Psychiatry, Dr. Mark Sinyor (of the University of Toronto) and his co-authors attempt to answer these questions. Focusing on US network news, they analyzed suicide-related news segments over an 11-year period, including for putatively harmful characteristics. “Coverage of suicide stories by major US cable news networks was often inconsistent with responsible reporting guidelines.” We consider the paper and its implications.

In the second selection from JAMA Psychiatry, Dr. Andrew S. Hyatt (of Harvard University) and his co-authors look at cannabis use after legalization and those individuals with psychosis. In this brief report, they drew from a US database with almost 2 000 participants. “In this study, individuals with psychosis reported a large increase in current cannabis use following legalization and commercialization of cannabis in their state, and by larger amounts than previously reported estimates of the general population.”

Is working from home better for mental health? In the third selection, from Mental Health & Prevention, Jean-Philippe Chaput (of the University of Ottawa) and his co-authors drew on national data to analyze work location and several self-rated measures, including mental health. The dataset is impressive with almost 25 000 participants. “We observed that work location was not related to self-rated mental health, life satisfaction, or life and work stress.”

DG

Selection 1: “‘Fair and balanced?’: quality of suicide-related reporting on major US cable news networks”

Mark Sinyor, Vera Yu Men, Prudence Po Ming Cha, et al.

The British Journal of Psychiatry, 7 July 2025  Online First

Suicide-related news can influence suicide rates via social learning, with some at-risk individuals identifying with and emulating behaviour portrayed in the media. The now well-described ‘Werther’ and ‘Papageno’ effects describe the respective increases and decreases in suicide deaths frequently observed following media stories of suicide death and survival. 

The most robust evidence for these effects derives from studies of news media, particularly print media, which have historically been easier to search and code. However, some evidence indicates differences in Werther effects between different formats of news media. A historical review of US studies, some examining reports dating to the advent of television, found television stories less likely to be followed by a Werther effect. However, more contemporary studies have found that increases in suicides are more likely following television reports compared with other media formats.

So begins a paper by Sinyor et al.

Here’s what they did:

  • They searched Factiva, a news archive, for suicide-related transcripts from US cable television news networks (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC). 
  • Their data covered 11 years (2012–2022). 
  • They included and coded segments “with a major focus on suicide (death, attempt, and/or thoughts) for general content, putatively harmful and protective characteristics and overarching narratives.”
  • They used chi-square tests to compare variables across networks.

Here’s what they found:

  • The search yielded 21 818 news show segments mentioning suicide – but most were removed because they were brief or unrelated to suicide, leaving 612 (CNN, 398; Fox News, 119; MSNBC, 95).
  • Focus. Across all networks, “these segments tended to focus on suicide death (72–89%) and presented stories about specific individuals (61–87%).” 
  • Problematic reporting. “Multiple putatively harmful characteristics were evident in segments across networks, including mention of a suicide method (42–52%) – with hanging (15–30%) and firearm use (12–20%) the most commonly mentioned – and stigmatising language (39–43%).” 
  • Survival. Only 2% presented a story of survival. (!)
  • Differences. CNN segments were “slightly more likely than those of the other networks to focus on suicide death;” MSNBC “more often aired segments focused on public policy related to suicide, legal issues related to suicide, and suicide in veterans;” Fox News segments included “more statistical data, more often linked COVID-19 to suicide, more frequently covered suicide in youth.”
  • Problematic reporting over time. CNN segments contained fewer putatively harmful elements (pre- 1.96 vs. post 1.22), as did MSNBC (pre 1.20 vs. post 0.82); there were no statistically significant differences were found for Fox News.

A few thoughts:

1. This is a good study addressing a practical problem, published in a major journal. 

2. The main finding in a sentence: “In line with some previous research across media internationally, we found only limited adherence to responsible media guidelines overall; approximately half of all segments included a suicide method, more than 40% used stigmatising language and most putatively protective characteristics appeared in 10% or less of segments.”

3. Ouch.

4. The authors note the lack of survival stories. “Arguably, the most consequential finding of our study is that there were only 15 news segments focused on a story of survival from suicide across all 3 networks and 11 years of data. This means that, on average, a person regularly viewing one network might come across an example of a suicide-related segment focused on a story of survival every 2 years.”

5. Ouch, again.

6. On a bit of a tangent, the title of this paper is terrific.

7. Like all studies, there are limitations. The authors note several, including: “It was restricted to three major news networks in the USA, and a single epoch.”

The full BJPsych paper can be found here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/fair-and-balanced-quality-of-suiciderelated-reporting-on-major-us-cable-news-networks/5CF512C1C01C6F80417A6E9E5E2AF548

Selection 2: “Cannabis Use Among Individuals With Psychosis After State-Level Commercial Cannabis Legalization”

Andrew S. Hyatt, Michael William Flores, Julie Johnson, et al.

JAMA Psychiatry, 8 October 2025  Online First

While many individuals use cannabis without significant harm, individuals with psychotic disorders who use cannabis have a higher symptom burden, worse functioning, more and longer hospitalizations, and higher relapse rates compared with nonusers. Given this, the rapid expansion of commercial cannabis markets in the US is cause for concern in this vulnerable population, especially given the rapid increase in market share of high-potency products and their negative effects on individuals with psychosis. The extant literature has not consistently found changes in psychosis-related outcomes, possibly due to the significant time lag expected between policy enactment, retail outlet openings, and long-term health effects.

No study, to our knowledge, has quantified whether patterns of cannabis use in individuals with psychotic disorders changed following state-level legalization and commercialization of cannabis.

So begins a paper by Hyatt et al.

Here’s what they did:

  • The authors used data “from 2014 to 2022 on state-level RCL (recreational cannabis legalization) with 5 years of follow-up from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health, a nationally representative longitudinal cohort study of 1856 adults aged 18 years and older in the US.” 
  • Individuals were included with a lifetime history of psychosis. 
  • Main outcome: “the percentage point (pp) changes in 30-day use of cannabis after RCL compared with control states using difference-in-differences methods.”

Here’s what they found:

A few thoughts:

1. This is an interesting study published in a major journal.

2. The main finding: “In this cohort study of 7465 responses from 1856 adults in the US, difference-in-differences analyses found that 30-day cannabis use increased by 9.53 percentage points after legalization among individuals with psychosis.”

3. Is anyone surprised by these results?

4. Much of the debate around legalization has focused on crime and other public policy issues, understandably. But what needs to be done to help (and protect) those who are vulnerable?

5. This brief report has clear limitations, including its small sample size.

The full JAMA Psychiatry brief report can be found here:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2840020

Selection 3: “Is working from home good for mental health and well-being? Associations between work location, self-rated mental health, life satisfaction, and life and work stress among Canadian adults”

Jean-Philippe Chaput, Mark S. Tremblay, Gary S. Goldfield, et al.

Mental Health & Prevention, June 2025

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed working modalities globally, and working from home (or teleworking) has become a new reality for many individuals. Telework may have both favourable and adverse outcomes for employees. On the positive side, teleworking may offer advantages such as enhanced work schedule flexibility, reduced commuting time, potential cost savings for companies in terms of office space, and environmental benefits (e.g., decreased reliance on automobiles and related pollution). However, the practice of teleworking does come with certain downsides, including a reduction in face-to-face social interactions, the potential for musculoskeletal issues if the home office setup is ergonomically inadequate, and the possibility of experiencing technostress due to prolonged engagement with information technologies throughout the day.

Work location plays a crucial role in shaping mental health, life satisfaction, and stress levels, as it influences work-life balance, social interactions, and job demands. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model suggests that different work settings present varying levels of job demands (e.g., workload, role ambiguity) and resources (e.g., social support, autonomy), which in turn affect well-being. Working from home, for instance, may enhance autonomy and reduce commuting-related stress, leading to improved work-life balance and life satisfaction. However, it can also blur boundaries between work and personal life, potentially increasing work-related stress and feelings of isolation.

Teleworking appears to affect mental health and well-being both positively, by offering flexibility and improved work-life balance, and negatively, through increased isolation and blurred boundaries between work and personal life. Moreover, the available evidence primarily consists of studies encompassing a limited number of participants and fails to accurately represent the broader working adult population.

So begins a paper by Chaput et al.

Here’s what they did:

  • They conducted a “cross-sectional and nationally representative study” using self-reported data.
  • They drew on the 2022 Canadian Community Health Survey, which has a response rate of 42.7%, considered “standard for large-scale national online surveys.” 
  • They excluded youth and those not working.
  • Participants were asked: “In the past 30 days, in which of these locations did you work the most hours?” Four response options were provided: (i) At a fixed location outside the home (e.g., office building, factory); (ii) Outside the home with no fixed location (e.g., driving, making sales calls); (iii) At home (e.g., main residence, cottage); or (iv) Absent from work. 
  • They were asked to self-rate their mental health, life satisfaction, and life and work stresses.
  • Logistic regression analyses examined the associations between work location and the outcome measures.

Here’s what they found:

  • The final sample size included 24 614 participants.
  • Demographics. Individuals working from home reported a higher level of education (93.9% had a post-secondary certificate diploma or university degree); many were in the business/finance/administration field (30.4%) or in natural and applied sciences (22.4%).
  • Work location. 62.9%, 12.2%, and 24.9% of Canadian adults reported working at a fixed location outside the home, outside the home with no fixed location, and at home, respectively.  
  • Self-ratings. “After adjustment for covariates, work location was not significantly associated with self-rated mental health, life satisfaction, life stress or work stress.”

A few thoughts:

1. This is an interesting study, drawing on robust data.

2. The main finding in a sentence: “Using a nationally representative sample of working adults in Canada, our results show that work location alone is not significantly associated with self-rated mental health, life satisfaction, or life and work stress.”

3. The results are somewhat surprising, particularly given the debates going on, with some – including unions – arguing that working from home results in better mental health. (There are other arguments forwarded, of course, that weren’t reviewed in this study.)

4. And, to state the obvious: this isn’t a study that looked at sub-populations, like those who have mental disorders and may well benefit from different work arrangements.

5. How to understand the findings? The authors write: “Mental health is a complex and multifaceted aspect of well-being that is influenced by various factors. While individual experiences can vary, key determinants of mental health in adults generally include biological, psychological, environmental and lifestyle factors as well as life events, cultural/societal influences and personal choices. These factors often interact and can vary in their impact on an individual’s mental health. The fact that the associations between work location and self-rated mental health and life satisfaction became not statistically significant after adjusting for covariates suggests that other factors were confounding these relationships.” Thoughtful.

6. Like all studies, there are limitations. The authors note several including: “the self-reported nature of variables collected, the inability to further break down the main analysis by other subgroups (e.g., by age group), and the descriptive nature of this cross-sectional examination that limits inferences about causality and temporality.”

The full Mental Health & Prevention paper can be found here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212657025000285



Reading of the Week. Every week I pick articles and papers from the world of Psychiatry.