Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42550981›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Temporal Dynamics of Internal vs External Entrapment in Suicidal Ideation in Psychotherapy Outpatients: Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Emmy Wichelhaus, Dajana Schreiber, Inken Höller, Thomas Forkmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Emmy WichelhausDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 2, Essen, 45141, Germany, 49 2011834502.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4722-8558
Dajana SchreiberDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 2, Essen, 45141, Germany, 49 2011834502.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3976-3016
Inken HöllerDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine, Health and Medical University, Düsseldorf/Krefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6572-1421
Thomas ForkmannDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 2, Essen, 45141, Germany, 49 2011834502.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-2016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Integrated Motivational-Volitional Model posits entrapment as a central driver of suicidal ideation (SI), yet little is known about how internal (IE) vs external entrapment (EE) unfolds in real time. Prior ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies have generally treated entrapment as unidimensional and used sampling intervals of several hours, potentially obscuring rapid risk processes. Objective: This study examined (1) cross-sectional and longitudinal temporal associations between IE, EE, and SI across lags of 1-3 prompts; (2) differences in immediacy of IE vs EE effects; and (3) whether the exact time interval (in minutes) between assessments moderates these associations. Methods: A total of 91 (62.2% female; Mage=31.6, SD 10.6) adults initiating outpatient psychotherapy (convenience sample) completed a 7-day EMA protocol with 10 daily prompts (30-120 min intervals). Participants provided informed consent, and ethical approval was obtained. A total of 5414 (85% compliance) observations were analyzed using multilevel models with maximum likelihood estimation (assuming missing at random). SI (4 items) and entrapment (IE, EE; 1 item each) were rated on 5-point scales. Lagged effects (up to ≈6 h) controlled for prior SI, and time intervals (in minutes) were tested as moderators. Results: SI varied primarily within persons (intraclass correlation=0.15). Cross-sectionally, both IE (est=0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24; P<.001) and EE (est=0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.27; P<.001) were significantly associated with SI, explaining 25.3% of within-person variance (Quasi R²). Lagged analyses revealed distinct temporal patterns. At Lag 1 (30-120 min), IE predicted increases in SI (est=0.13, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.18; P<.001), whereas EE did not (est=0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; P=.60). At lag 2 (60-240 min), EE predicted SI (est=0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; P<.05), whereas IE was not significant. At lag 3 (90-360 min), IE negatively predicted SI (est=-0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01; P<.05), while EE positively predicted SI (est=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P<.05). Prior SI consistently predicted subsequent SI (est range=0.38-0.42; P<.001). Time intervals did not moderate effects (P values>.12). Conclusions: Entrapment is a dynamic correlate of SI, with IE and EE showing distinct temporal patterns. IE has rapid, within-minute effects on SI, whereas EE shows delayed associations. This study is innovative in modeling minute-level dynamics using high-frequency EMA. Unlike prior unidimensional, lower-frequency designs, it captures ultra-short-term risk processes and clarifies temporally distinct pathways within the Integrated Motivational-Volitional Model and enhances theoretical precision regarding proximal vs distal drivers of SI. Clinically, results suggest that interventions may benefit from targeting IE in real time.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentOutpatientsPsychotherapySuicidal IdeationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleProspective StudiesTime Factorsecological momentary assessmentEMAentrapmentshort-term risk dynamicssuicidal ideation

Identifiers

PMID42550981
PMCPMC13436799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.