ArticleJournal of affective disorders2021
Examining the temporal stability of suicide capability among undergraduates: A latent growth analysis.
Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis on the affect regulation function of real-time self-injurious thoughts and behaviours.Nature human behaviour · 2022Pooled it
- The use of advanced technology and statistical methods to predict and prevent suicide.Nature reviews psychology · 2023Article
- Assessing Resident Well-Being After the ABSITE: A Bad Time to Ask?Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022Article
- Non-suicidal self-injury and its relation to suicide through acquired capability: investigating this causal mechanism in a mainly late-diagnosed autistic sample.Molecular autism · 2022Article
- The relevance of the interpersonal theory of suicide for predicting past-year and lifetime suicidality in autistic adults.Molecular autism · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelatively few studies test the interpersonal psychological theory's monotonicity hypothesis. The monotonicity hypothesis proposes that suicide capability (i.e., fearlessness about death and pain tolerance) is stable or increases linearly with exposure to painful and provocative events. Research is conflicted, suggesting that suicide capability is static, decreases, or increases and returns to baseline. The current study thus tested this hypothesis in a sample of college students with histories of suicidal ideation. We hypothesized a stable and an increasing trajectory.
methodsParticipants were 206 undergraduates; primarily women (73%), on average 19.05 years old, heterosexual (85%), and first-years (69%). Participants completed a baseline battery of questionnaires on suicide risk factors and daily diaries on suicide capability and suicidal ideation for 90 days (n = 7,342 surveys, 40% compliance rate). Group-based trajectory analyses were conducted with the SAS macro PROC TRAJ.
resultsModeling revealed a three group quadratic model. Low (27.7%), Moderate (41.3%), and High (31.1%) suicide capability groups remained static over time. Baseline suicidal ideation, but not history of suicide attempts or family history of suicidal behavior, distinguished groups; participants with suicidal ideation at baseline were less likely to be in the low suicide capability group. LIMITATIONS: Brief, dichotomized assessments, and a high attrition rate.
conclusionsThese data showed temporal stability of suicide capability and suggest that the "acquired" component of capability may be overemphasized. Clarifying the stability and modifiability of suicide capability will enable empirically-based applications of the theory to suicide prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.