ArticleBMJ open2023
Longitudinal investigation of the presence of different trajectories and associated health and socio-economic determinants, for participants who report suicidal ideation within a community-based public health survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smoking status and the onset of suicidal ideation among adults in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic.Annals of general psychiatry · 2025Article
- Clinical correlates of new-onset and persistent suicidal ideation in adolescents with major depressive disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiven the paucity of evidence-based research investigating different suicidal ideation profiles and trajectories, this project sought to investigate health and socio-economic factors associated with the presence of suicidal ideation and changes in ideation over time.
designLongitudinal cohort design, using logistic regression analysis.
settingA public health survey was administered at two timepoints in a community setting across the North West of England. In the 2015/2016 survey, participants were recruited from high (n=20) and low (n=8) deprivation neighbourhoods. In the 2018 survey, only the 20 high-deprivation neighbourhoods were included.
participants4287 people were recruited in 2015/2016 and 3361 were recruited in 2018. The 2018 sample was subdivided into those who responded only in 2018 (n=2494: replication sample) and those who responded at both timepoints (n=867: longitudinal sample). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Suicide ideation was the dependent variable which was assessed using item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire instrument.
resultsThe prevalence of suicidal ideation was 11% (n=454/4319) at 2015/2016 and 16% (n=546/3361) at 2018.Replication study results highlighted: persistent debilitation from physical ill health and/or medication side effects; demographic factors (ie, middle-aged, single or never married); and personal coping strategies (ie, smoking) as risk factors for suicidal ideation. A static/improved financial position and high levels of empathy were protective factors.Longitudinal study results confirmed three suicidal ideation trajectories: 'onset', 'remission' and 'persistence'. Similar findings to the replication study were evidenced for the onset and persistence trajectories. Persistent suicidal ideation was synonymous with higher levels of practical support which may correspond to the higher levels of debilitation and functional disability reported within this group. Remission was characterised by fewer debilitating factors and higher levels of self-agency.
conclusionA greater appreciation of the heterogeneity of suicidal trajectories should lead to the implementation of broad clinical assessments and targeted interventions.
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.