Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most official mortality publications do not present the mechanism of injury (for example, cut/pierce, drowning, fall, poisoning, or suffocation) for intentional injuries (for example, suicide or homicide). OBJECTIVES: To determine if the presentation of mechanism of injury for intentional injuries had different mechanism profiles. METHODS: Age adjusted injury mortality rates by intent and mechanism of injury for Taiwan were calculated for the years 1975 to 1998. The International Classification of Disease codes for the matrix by intent and mechanism groupings were based on recommendations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: If rates for both groups (intentional and unintentional) are combined, the importance of poisoning and suffocation increase relative to their contribution for unintentional injuries alone. Given the same mechanism of injury, different intents showed different patterns of change during the study period and given the same intent, the changes over time differed for different mechanisms of injury. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to include the mechanism of injury within intentional injuries because it provides different profiles of injury problems. Thus the simultaneous tabulation of injury mortality data by both intent and mechanism is a necessary step for identifying and prioritizing injury problems. The argument that good preventive measures could prevent both unintentional and intentional injuries was also confirmed.