Preprint Article Version 3 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Network Analysis: A Novel Approach to Understand Suicidal Behavior

Version 1 : Received: 24 January 2017 / Approved: 25 January 2017 / Online: 25 January 2017 (17:19:48 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 8 February 2017 / Approved: 8 February 2017 / Online: 8 February 2017 (09:39:34 CET)
Version 3 : Received: 11 February 2017 / Approved: 13 February 2017 / Online: 13 February 2017 (11:04:49 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

de Beurs, D. Network Analysis: A Novel Approach to Understand Suicidal Behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 219. de Beurs, D. Network Analysis: A Novel Approach to Understand Suicidal Behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 219.


Although suicide is a major public health issue worldwide, we understand little of the onset and development of suicidal behavior. Suicidal behavior is argued to be the end result of the complex interaction between psychological, social and biological factors. Epidemiological studies resulted in a range of risk factors for suicidal behavior, but we do not yet understand how their interaction increases the risk for suicidal behavior. A new approach called network analysis can help us better understand this process as it allows to visualize and quantify complex association between many different symptoms or risk factors. A network analysis of data contain information on suicidal patients can help us understand how risk factors interact and how their interaction is related to suicidal thoughts and behaviour. A network perspective has been successfully applied to the field of depression and psychosis, but not yet to the field of suicidology. In this theoretical article, I will introduce the concept of network analysis to the field of suicide prevention, and offer directions for future applications and studies.


suicide; network analysis; symptoms; personalized treatment


Medicine and Pharmacology, Psychiatry and Mental Health

Comments (1)

Importance: How significant is the paper to the field?
Outstanding/highlight paper
Significant contribution
Incremental contribution
No contribution
Soundness of evidence/arguments presented:
Conclusions well supported
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle
Comment 1
Received: 1 March 2017
Commenter: Prof. Ph/D W.L Bastiani
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I show you the differences within human minds
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.