ABSTRACT
Previous research has highlighted the role of social determinants of health on mental health outcomes, but their impact on suicide mortality is less understood. The aim of this umbrella review was to systematically examine the association between 10 social determinants of health, as defined by the World Health Organization, and suicide mortality. A keyword search of titles and abstracts was conducted in six digital databases for studies published to 24 August 2023. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English examining the association between these determinants and suicide. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted AMSTAR-2 tool. Due to significant heterogeneity in the included studies, a meta-analysis was not undertaken. A narrative synthesis, structured by social determinant, was conducted. 49 records (25 meta-analyses and 24 systematic reviews) were eligible for inclusion in this review. The social determinants with the most available evidence were housing, basic amenities and the environment (n=21), income and social protection (n=13), unemployment (n=8) and early childhood development (n=6). Limited evidence was identified for education (n=3), social inclusion and non-discrimination (n=3) and working life conditions (n=3). No reviews examined the relationship between affordable healthcare services, structural conflict or food insecurity and suicide mortality. There was evidence of a modest effect of social determinants on suicide mortality. Most evidence related to unemployment, job insecurity, income and social protection and childhood adversity. The methodological quality of the included reviews varied considerably. High-quality research fully exploring the relationship between social and environmental factors and suicide risk is needed.
INTRODUCTION
The complex and multi-faceted nature of suicide is widely recognised in multi-level, interdisciplinary models of the behaviour, that typically conceptualise suicide risk as an interaction between distal (predisposing) factors (e.g., early life adversity, genetics, family history) and proximal (precipitating) factors (e.g., recent adverse life events, psychopathology) (1,2). Turecki and colleagues propose a biopsychosocial model which adds a third (developmental) set of factors, which include chronic substance misuse and personality traits. “Sociological, demographic, economic and environmental factors may influence any or all of the distal, developmental and proximal factors” (3). In particular, socioeconomic factors appear to have a strong association with suicide, particularly among men (4).
In recent times, the broader environmental and social context in which suicidal behaviour occurs has received more attention from suicide researchers and in national suicide prevention strategies and action plans. These social determinants of health, defined as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life”, including socioeconomic context, inequalities, poverty, environmental factors and healthcare access (1), can be addressed across multiple population levels, ranging from global interventions (via collaborative, multi-sectoral action at national, regional and local levels), to targeted, person-centred approaches. A greater focus on the social determinants of suicide may help to identify opportunities to inform broader inter-governmental policies (5). Such guidance would help to target suicide prevention strategies and encourage more upstream measures to tackle health inequalities (6).
Previous research has identified the role of social determinants in the aetiology of mental ill-health. For example, an umbrella review of interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health found that welfare benefits in particular may reduce socioeconomic inequalities associated with mental health outcomes (7). However, to date there has been no systematic review which has examined the social determinants of health associated specifically with suicide mortality. The aim of this umbrella review was to fill this important knowledge gap.
METHODS
Search strategy and eligibility criteria
This umbrella review as based on research evidence obtained from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023447175; 31 July 2023) and follows the PRISMA Guidelines for Systematic Reviews (8). A keyword search of titles and abstracts in six digital databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and Embase) was conducted for studies published to 24 August 2023 (see Supplementary File 1). Individual keyword searches were constructed for 10 social determinants, as defined by the World Health Organisation (1). These included: income and social protection; education; unemployment and job security; working life conditions; food insecurity; housing, basic amenities and the environment; early childhood development; social inclusion and non-discrimination; structural conflict; and access to affordable health services of decent quality.
Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses which examined the association between any social determinant of health (as defined above) and suicide mortality, written in the English language. Primary research studies, conferences abstracts, reports, book chapters and dissertations were excluded. If a study examined multiple suicide-related outcomes, we only included the data specifically relating to suicide mortality. Studies were excluded when suicide mortality data could not be separated from other suicide-related outcomes (e.g., ideation, suicidal behaviour, suicide attempt). Similarly, any review which covered only one study relating to suicide mortality was excluded. A list of studies which were excluded on this basis can be found in Supplementary File 2.
The titles and abstracts were independently screened by two researchers (KG & GP) in Covidence. Disagreement was resolved through discussion among the pair or by consulting a third researcher (PC, SP, HMC OR EG). Articles included for full-text screening were assessed against the inclusion criteria by two (KG & GP) researchers. The reference lists of included studies were hand searched by two authors (KG & GP) for further potentially eligible studies; any eligible studies were uploaded to Covidence for duplicate independent screening.
Data extraction
Data extraction was conducted using a pre-developed data extraction form (Supplementary File 3), which was initially piloted on three of the included studies. For each eligible study, we extracted data on the number and characteristics of primary studies, effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals, qualitative findings, and quality appraisal. Data were independently extracted by KG, GP and HMC and were cross-checked by one reviewer (KG & GP) to ensure reliability. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
The methodological quality of included studies was critically appraised using an adapted version of the AMSTAR-2 tool (9), which was specially developed for application in the assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The tool covers 16 criteria, including study selection and screening, data extraction and synthesis, as well risk of bias assessment. Each criterion is rated as “yes,” “partially yes,” or “no.” The quality of included reviews/meta-analyses is rated as high (zero or one non-critical weakness), moderate (more than one non-critical weakness), low (one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses) and critically low (more than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses). As the AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention systematic reviews, we adapted one critical question: ‘Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?’ (10). If the authors included reasons for exclusions in their PRISMA flow diagram, we answered, ‘partial yes’, rather than ‘no’. We excluded one non-critical question, ‘Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?’. All studies were assessed by KG, GP and HMC independently and cross-checked; any disagreements were resolved though discussion. We provided a global rating of methodological quality (critically low, low, moderate, or high), as recommended. An adapted version of the tool can be found in Supplementary File 4.
Results of all eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, regardless of topic overlap, were included in the review (11). Study overlap was identified and managed by two authors (KG & GP) and documented in an excel file. Each overlapping study was colour coded and tagged to identify overlap between primary studies in the included reviews. Using guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Overviews of Reviews, we decided not exclude studies solely based on duplication of primary studies across different reviews (11). There were several reasons for taking this approach. First, as research on the social determinants of suicide is relatively new and evolving, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence. Moreover, it is plausible that the systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in our overview offer unique perspectives and differing methodological approaches. By including all relevant reviews regardless of overlap in primary studies, we aimed to capture diverse interpretations and synthesis of the evidence, thereby enriching the breadth and depth of our overview. Furthermore, we decided not to exclude reviews based on poor methodological quality. This decision was taken as some reviews may have identified key primary studies that are central to understanding the nuances of the topic area. By adopting a more inclusive approach, we hoped to mitigate the risk of overlooking important evidence and ensure a more balanced representation of the literature.
Data synthesis
Due to the heterogeneity of included studies in respect of methods, outcome measures, topic areas and contexts, a meta-analysis was not undertaken. A narrative synthesis is provided, grouping reviews into topic areas. Meta-analysis results from the individual reviews were summarised visually using Stata Version 17. Odds ratios, relative risks, risk ratios, incidence rate ratios, hazard ratios and standardised mortality ratios were considered equal measures of risk due to the low rate of suicide mortality in the general population (rare disease assumption).
RESULTS
The initial database search yielded 9,913 records. An additional record was identified from hand searching reference lists. Following the elimination of duplicates (n=5,206), 4,707 unique records underwent screening against the inclusion criteria at the title and abstract stage. Of these, 229 (plus the additional record) proceeded to full-text screening and 181 were excluded (see Figure 1 for reasons). Ultimately, 49 records, 25 meta-analyses and 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Figure 1 outlines the flow of information in the different phases of this umbrella review.
All social determinants explored by each review in relation to suicide mortality were included in this umbrella review. Data extracted from eligible studies included: the determinant(s) of interest, participant demographics, number of studies related to suicide mortality and results. The years of primary studies in each review ranged from 1970 to 2021, and all reviews were published between 2004 and 2023. The included articles addressed seven of the ten social determinants examined. The social determinants with the most available evidence were housing, basic amenities and the environment (n=21), income and social protection (n=13), unemployment (n=8) and early childhood development (n=6). Limited evidence was identified for education (n=3), social inclusion and non-discrimination (n=3) and working life conditions (n=3). Notably, we did not identify any reviews that examined the relationship between affordable healthcare service of decent quality, structural conflict or food insecurity and suicide mortality. The characteristics of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses included in this review are detailed in each of the results tables.
Quality of the included reviews
In this umbrella review, 25 studies were appraised as critically low and 13 were categorised as low quality. Within the critical domains of the AMSTAR-2 tool, many studies rated critically low/low for the following reasons: (i) failure to register a protocol prior to conducting the review (n=21); (ii) inadequate assessment of bias in the primary studies included (n= 19); (iii) insufficient discussion of the impact bias when interpreting the results of the review (n= 26) and; (iv) failure to assess publication bias, where applicable (n=6) (9). Four studies received a moderate assessment and the remaining seven were rated as high quality. The global ratings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses included is this review are outlined in Table 1.
Income and social protection (n=13)
The four meta-analyses (see figure 2) and nine systematic reviews included in this domain covered several topics, including: low income (6,12,13), financial stress (14), debt (15), economic recession (16–20), poverty (21), socio-economic disadvantage (22,23) and social security policy (24) (see Table 2). Three systematic reviews found an association between low income and the risk of suicide (6,12,13).
One review reported a significant association between suicide mortality and debt (15), while a more recent meta-analysis found that the financially stressed were more likely to die by suicide than their non-exposed counterparts (14). All five reviews examining the impact of the 2008 economic recession reported an increase in suicide rates during this period (16–20). One review reported a positive association for both individual and national poverty measures and suicide mortality (21).
Similarly, two reviews reported that areas characterised by high levels of socio-economic disadvantage were at an increased risk of suicide (22,23). A systematic review examining the evidence regarding social security policy reforms in high-income countries found that suicide rates generally declined when measures were introduced to safeguard income (e.g., retirement benefits, increased tax credits) and increased when governments introduced austerity measures (e.g., stricter criteria to qualify for state disability benefits) (24).
Education (n=3)
Three studies, two random effects meta-analyses (6,13) (see figure 2) and one systematic review (12), found that lower levels of education were associated with suicide in both men and women (6,12,13) (see Table 3). The same studies reported that suicide was associated with a lower degree of educational attainment.
Unemployment and job insecurity (n=8)
Six meta-analyses (see Figure 2) and two systematic reviews explored the association of unemployment and unemployment benefits on suicide mortality (6,13,14,25–29) (see Table 4). All six studies reported a positive association between risk of suicide and unemployment (6,14,25–27). One review found a negative correlation between unemployment benefits and suicide rates in three out of five primary ecological studies, with more generous unemployment benefits resulting in fewer suicide deaths (28).
Working life conditions (n=3)
Three random effects meta-analyses (see Figure 2) investigated various components of working life conditions, including job stressors (30), workplace violence (31), workplace bullying (31) and low occupation (6) (see Table 5). One study revealed that exposure to any job stressor was associated with an increased risk of suicide (30). Furthermore, there was a higher risk of suicide associated with lower supervisor and collegial support and low job control. Another study found that the suicide rate was higher in those exposed to workplace violence than among the non-exposed; however, suicide incidence was not significantly higher among individuals exposed to workplace bullying (31). A meta-analysis of the association between occupation and suicide, found that lower skilled occupations (manual/non-skilled/blue collar workers) were at increased risk of suicide than higher skilled occupations. This association was significant among men but not among women (6).
Housing, basic amenities and the environment (n=21)
Twenty-one reviews (ten meta-analyses (see Figure 3), eleven systematic reviews), covered a broad spectrum of topics, including: rural versus urban living (12,32–35); temperature increase (36–40); air pollution and ozone exposure (39,41–44); natural disasters (45–47); exposure to pesticides (48); and the impact of displacement and housing affordability and foreclosure (49,50) (see Table 6).
Five reviews found an association between rural residence in adulthood and risk of suicide (12,32–35). Two reviews concluded that there was an association between urban living and suicide (32,33). Raschke et al. (2022) reported that residing in metropolitan areas was associated with lower suicide rates and reduced odds of suicide compared to living in rural or urban areas of South Korea (in two of three studies included) (12).
Five reviews, including four meta-analyses, reported positive, albeit weak, associations between temperature increases and suicide mortality (36–40). Four meta-analyses reported a weak association between air pollution and suicide mortality; however, the association varied across different pollutants and lag times (39,41–44). Finally, one review of four observational studies reported a positive association between ozone exposure and suicide(44).
Three reviews, comprising one meta-analysis and two systematic reviews, synthesised findings relating to the association between natural disasters and suicide mortality (45–47). Overall, Safarpour et al. (2020) found that suicide deaths increased significantly in the period after disasters; a subgroup analysis of five studies revealed that this impact was attributable to increases among men (45).
Similarly, another review reported a positive association between flooding and suicide (46); however these findings were based on just two primary studies. Fernandez et al. (2015) reported conflicting evidence about changes in suicide incidence in the aftermath of a flooding event (47).
One systematic review presented conflicting evidence on the association between pesticide exposure and suicide mortality. Only four out of eleven primary studies reported that suicide rates were higher in areas with intensive pesticide use (48).
In a systematic review investigating suicide rates among displaced populations, several studies suggested that suicide rates were lower in refugees who have been granted asylum compared to the host populations (49).
Finally, a systematic review, including two population-level studies and one individual-level study, synthesised the evidence regarding housing and suicide (50). The first population-level study found no correlation between unaffordable housing and suicide, while the second study reported an association between the age-adjusted suicide rate and foreclosures, particularly among adults aged 46-64 years. The individual-level study reported an increase in foreclosure-related suicides during the foreclosure crisis in 2007.
Early childhood development (n=6)
Three systematic reviews and three meta-analyses (see Figure 3) investigated various aspects of early childhood development, including: child welfare services (51,52), perinatal exposures (53–55) and cognitive skills (56) (see Table 7). A meta-analysis reported a significant association between adults exposed to any form of state care in childhood and the risk of suicide in adulthood (51). Similarly, another systematic review indicated an increased suicide risk among individuals who have received child welfare services interventions (52).
Two reviews found an association between young parent age at birth (<20 years) and education and the risk of suicide (53,55). In another review, perinatal exposures, such living in single mother household and low maternal SES, were associated with higher suicide risk (53). Another review reported an association between childhood socioeconomic position and risk of suicide in adulthood, with suicide being more likely to occur among those of lower childhood socioeconomic background (54). Similarly, men whose fathers worked in manual occupations were also at an increased risk however, this was accounted for by adult socioeconomic position (54). In contrast, another review failed to find an association between suicide risk and unskilled parental occupation (55).
Finally, a meta-analysis of eleven studies indicated that low childhood cognitive skills, for example low IQ and school performance, were associated with increased risk of suicide, mediated by educational attainment (56).
Social inclusion and non-discrimination (n=3)
Three systematic reviews explored the relationship between social inclusion and suicide mortality (57–59) (see Table 8). One systematic review presented mixed results on the association between social capital and suicide, with only one of the included studies reporting an association (57). Another systematic review examining the literature on social factors influencing suicidal behaviour in older adults found that limited social connectedness was linked to suicide in later stages of life while living with children was associated with a reduced risk of death by suicide (58).
Finally, in their 2023 systematic review, Blázquez-Fernández et al. demonstrated a positive and direct relationship between suicide mortality and social isolation and loneliness (59).
DISCUSSION
This umbrella review of 49 reviews, representing seven (of ten) distinct social determinant domains, examined a wide range of associations with suicide risk.
Overall, there was evidence of a modest effect of social determinants on suicide mortality. In particular, suicide risk was associated with unemployment and job insecurity, income and social protection. In addition, a risk between childhood adversity – particularly experiences of care – and suicide was found. The quality of the included reviews varied considerably, as did the strength of the associations reported in the included meta-analyses. High-quality research which fully explores the relationship between social and environmental factors and suicide risk is needed.
The findings of this review support previous research in identifying a direct association between economic instability and suicide, at both individual and ecological levels. Our review also clearly evidences the effects of economic recessions on suicide incidence, again reflecting previous research on this topic (60–62). The finding that suicide rates are positively influenced by governmental measures to protect income but increase following the imposition of austerity measures (24) clearly evidences the impact of governmental economic policies on suicide prevention (63). This could include initiatives such as increased unemployment benefits, welfare programs or stimulus packages aimed at supporting individuals and families facing financial hardship (64). On the other hand, the imposition of austerity measures, which typically involve reductions in government spending and availability of social services, tends to exacerbate economic distress and may increase suicidal risk (65,66). Strategies which aim to support vulnerable groups (e.g. those at risk of job losses or bankruptcy) during periods of uncertainty and economic and global crises should be implemented (67,68). Further research should consider how impacts differ according to income status of countries (69).
At an individual level, there are well established links between social and health inequalities and suicide risk (70,71), with emerging evidence for the role of several factors, including physical health, sociodemographic factors, early childhood events, and interactions with the criminal justice system (71). Our review found that exposure to childhood adversity, represented by involvement with child welfare services and state care, conferred an increased risk of suicide in adulthood. This was also reflected in studies which examined childhood and parental socioeconomic status. This evidence adds to an increasing body of literature which indicates the need for more upstream approaches to preventing suicide, particularly those which involve primary prevention efforts targeted at young people and families (72).
The majority of included studies (n=21) focused on the relationship between environmental factors and suicide, most often, air temperature and pollution, and natural disasters. While the evidence linking these environmental factors to suicide risk was generally weaker and suffered in terms of methodological quality, it underscores an emerging area of concern, namely, the impact of climate change on mental health. Given alarming trends in global temperatures and the increased frequency of natural disasters, understanding the mental health consequences of these environmental changes becomes increasingly important in prevention efforts (73,74).
It has been noted that a challenge with evidencing the role of social determinants on health outcomes is their distal relationship, along with the complex interplay between intermediary factors (75), and may be one reason why the effects observed in this umbrella review are of moderate association. In particular, the association between social determinants and suicide may operate through a range of risk factors, such as substance misuse, relationship difficulties, poor mental and physical health (3,76,77). Findings from this review underscore the importance of longitudinal and high-quality research to disentangle the complexity of interactions between various social determinants and suicide risk. Many of the included studies in each systematic review were cross-sectional in design, limiting the ability to infer causality. Future research should aim to employ longitudinal designs and robust methodologies, utilising data from multiple sources, to improve understanding of the temporal relationships and potential causal pathways between social determinants and suicide (75).
The findings of this review are consistent with other reviews examining social determinants of mental health more broadly. In particular, we note a recent evidence review which hypothesises that inequalities experienced at multiple levels arise via structural processes and policies that further marginalise and place vulnerable groups at a significant disadvantage in society (78). In addition, a recent systematic review of reviews (79) provides evidence to support a range of interventions to reduce the impact of social determinants of mental health, especially interventions targeting intimate partner violence and programmes to address working conditions and unemployment. The authors argue for a move away from traditional ‘Western’ psychosocial approaches towards strategies that reduce the impacts of social determinants, such as climate action and food security in the context of natural disasters (79). We would argue that multilevel approaches to suicide prevention are needed, underpinned by a broader public health, whole-of-government strategy (80).
Implications for policy, practice and research
The growing recognition of the need to consider the intersectionality between social determinants of health and suicide must be reflected in the future development of suicide prevention strategies. In addition, the impact of governmental policies across several sectors should consider the potential mental health impact of such policies, through the use of mental health impact assessments for example (70,71). It is also important that research considers what policies and policy settings are likely to be the most impactful and cost-effective in terms of reducing suicide at a population level.
The observed association between factors rooted in childhood experiences and environments and suicide risk has significant implications, further emphasising the importance of prioritising strategies to reduce suicidal risk among young people, particularly those focused on clinical, educational and community settings (81,82).
This also has implications for the structure and delivery of healthcare supports and services. The findings of this review underline the need to adequately design and deliver supports and interventions for people at risk of suicide that are culturally sensitive and trauma-informed (83).
Our review did not identify any systematic reviews which examined the impact between access to affordable healthcare and suicide risk. However, it is well established that longstanding challenges exist in ensuring that health services, in particular mental health services, are equally accessible across groups (84). These challenges include addressing barriers such as stigma, acceptability and integration of health services (84).
Strengths and limitations
This umbrella review used a robust methodology to identify evidence supporting the association between various social determinants and risk of suicide. The classification of social determinants developed by the World Health Organization (1) provides a theoretical underpinning of the search process used in the review. The methodological rigour of the review process enhances the reliability and validity of the findings. There are several factors to consider when interpreting the findings of this review. This review has highlighted the need for more high-quality studies examining the social determinants of suicide mortality. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the exposures examined, even within specific categories of determinants. Furthermore, many social determinants were not represented in this review. Challenges have been highlighted when considering the evidence for social determinants of health more broadly (75), underlying the need for high-quality data. This is particularly true when examining suicide, a relatively rare outcome with well-established challenges around accurate reporting across different countries (85).
Some primary studies are included in multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this umbrella review, particularly those focusing on air pollution and temperature. This may lead to potential biases in the overview if these studies disproportionately influence results. Additionally, we observed substantial heterogeneity in the study populations and range of indicators used, ruling out the feasibility of undertaking a meta-analysis. Instead, we opted for a narrative approach to synthesise and interpret the findings from each review, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the topic while acknowledging the diversity of evidence within the literature. Moreover, the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses also varied in the rigor of their methodology, risk of bias assessments, and reporting standards. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the quality and reliability of each included review when interpreting the findings presented here. Most of the reviews we included were rated as being critically low (n=25) or low (n=13), particularly those focusing on the domain of the environment. This raises concerns regarding the robustness and reliability of the findings, necessitating cautious interpretation and consideration of the potential for bias and methodological weaknesses.
While the WHO framework of social determinants provided a useful heuristic for this review, it may not encompass all relevant social determinants that contribute to suicide mortality across different populations and contexts. We were also unable to find operational definitions of the WHO concepts, which had repercussions for the development of the search terms for the review. There is a need for a more expansive and inclusive conceptualisation of social determinants that considers additional dimensions, such as cultural factors, interpersonal relationships, violence and crime. Considering these limitations, it becomes evident that further research is essential to address the gaps and challenges identified in this umbrella review and to further our understanding of the complex interplay between a wide and varying array of social determinants and their influence on suicide mortality.
CONCLUSION
This review has highlighted that the need for high-quality research which addresses the long-term associations between social determinants of health and suicide, with few studies rigorously addressing determinants such as environmental impacts, food security, structural conflict and access to healthcare. Nevertheless, there was evidence for a range of determinants related to income, social protection, unemployment in addition to early childhood development. These findings emphasise the need to advocate for measures which seek to implement population-based approaches to suicide prevention, and to better understand the impacts of measures which seek to address social determinants in terms of mental health and suicide prevention.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SECTION
1. Funding statement
This work was funded by the Health Service Executive, National Office for Suicide Prevention, Dublin, Ireland.
2. Thank-you’s
The authors thank Ms. Virgina Conrick, Academic Success Librarian, University College Cork, for her valuable time and input into the planning and execution of the search strategy used in this review. We would like to thank Dr Cliodhna O’ Brien, Senior Postdoctoral Researcher at the National Suicide Research
Foundation, for her contribution in the development of the umbrella review protocol.
3. Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
↵* Kerrie Gallagher and Grace Phillip are joint first authors.
Revision to the title of the review.
REFERENCES
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.