ArticleBrain and behavior2022
Metacognition vulnerabilities in time of crisis: Who to protect from suicidal risk?
Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metacognition vulnerabilities in time of crisis: Who to protect from suicidal risk?Brain and behavior · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDuring stressful events, we are all trying to cope. We may not be equal depending on our emotional, psychological, and mental states. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we could try to avoid negative information processing and anxiogenics content to prevent unhealthy thinking processes. One of the processes we can observe regarding our way of thinking and its impact on our psychological well-being is Metacognition.
methodsWe recruited 104 outpatients in 2018. In 2020, during the pandemic, we recruited 216 outpatients and 176 healthy controls. We assessed their level of metacognition with the MCQ30 scale together with Suicidal risk and Hopelessness.
resultsAll three groups showed significant differences, with the nonclinical sample having higher scores in MCQ30. Regression revealed the different profiles where Hopelessness was the only predictor for the clinical sample, whereas metacognition was an adjunctive predictor of suicidal risk for the nonclinical sample.
conclusionOur results showed that the COVID-19 crisis influenced metacognitive levels for the nonclinical sample but not for the clinical population. Moreover, Hopelessness predicted suicide risk for both populations, but Metacognition was also a predictive factor for the nonclinical sample. We conclude with the possible impact of preventive measures based on Metacognitive work that can be created out of these results.
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.