Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39399777›Full record

ArticleJournal of mood and anxiety disorders2024

Negative affect influences suicide-specific attentional biases.

Beverlin Rosario-Williams, Regina Miranda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mood and anxiety disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Beverlin Rosario-WilliamsHunter College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA.
Regina MirandaHunter College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA.

Funding

RISE Program Hunter College Option IIIR25GM060665 · NIGMS · HUNTER COLLEGE · PI ORTIZ, BENJAMIN D.,, SERRANO, PETER A · 2000 to 2022
$22.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM060665
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Studies using tasks that measure suicide-specific attentional biases have not specified which attentional processes are related to risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. This study distinguished suicide-specific engagement and disengagement biases from other forms of cognitive processing and investigated under which affective conditions suicide-specific biases emerged. Method: An ethnoracially and socioeconomically diverse sample of 153 young adults (87 % female; 52 % Non-Hispanic White), ages 18-34, with moderate-to-high symptoms of anxiety, depression, or recent suicide ideation were randomly assigned to experience positive, negative, or neutral affect, completed cognitive tasks of attention, construct accessibility, and threat bias, and self-report measures. Results: Individuals with recent ideation displayed facilitated disengagement from suicide-specific stimuli irrespective of affective state. Those with distal ideation showed slower disengagement from suicide-specific stimuli in the sad condition only. Conclusions: Individuals with recent suicide ideation display automatic processing of suicide-related information, perhaps due to recent rehearsal of suicide-related content. In contrast, individuals with distal ideation experiencing negative affect appear to have difficulty disengaging attention from suicide-related content. Limits to generalizability of the findings include a predominantly female sample, although the sample's racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity increase generality of the research.

Indexed as

Affect inductionAttention disengagementAttention engagementCognitive processingConstruct accessibilitySuicide ideation

Identifiers

PMID39399777
PMCPMC11469581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.