Relations of body dissatisfaction with self-injurious thoughts and behaviours in clinical and non-clinical samples: a meta-analysis of studies published between 1995 and 2022.
{"title":"Relations of body dissatisfaction with self-injurious thoughts and behaviours in clinical and non-clinical samples: a meta-analysis of studies published between 1995 and 2022.","authors":"Yaoxiang Ren, Shuqi Cui, Tianxiang Cui, Chanyuan Tang, Jianwen Song, Todd Jackson, Jinbo He","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2310140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Body dissatisfaction is a global public health concern. Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITB), including suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), have been documented as potentially significant correlates of body dissatisfaction. However, prior findings regarding associations between body dissatisfaction and SITB have been somewhat inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to determine the nature and strength of such associations in both clinical and non-clinical samples. A literature search identified 83 relevant articles and extracted 234 effect sizes. Using a three-level random-effects model, mean effect sizes (<i>r</i> values) for relationships between body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and NSSI in clinical samples were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.13-0.20) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.19-0.34), respectively. In non-clinical samples, these values were 0.22 (95% CI, 0.16-0.28), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.29), respectively. Several study features (e.g., participant age, geographic region and instrument validity) emerged as significant moderators. This meta-analysis provides robust support for body dissatisfaction as a significant correlate of SITB across clinical and non-clinical samples in addition to identifying study characteristics that contribute to effect size variability. Implications are discussed for SITB research, prevention and intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2310140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Body dissatisfaction is a global public health concern. Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITB), including suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), have been documented as potentially significant correlates of body dissatisfaction. However, prior findings regarding associations between body dissatisfaction and SITB have been somewhat inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to determine the nature and strength of such associations in both clinical and non-clinical samples. A literature search identified 83 relevant articles and extracted 234 effect sizes. Using a three-level random-effects model, mean effect sizes (r values) for relationships between body dissatisfaction and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and NSSI in clinical samples were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.13-0.20) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.19-0.34), respectively. In non-clinical samples, these values were 0.22 (95% CI, 0.16-0.28), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.29), respectively. Several study features (e.g., participant age, geographic region and instrument validity) emerged as significant moderators. This meta-analysis provides robust support for body dissatisfaction as a significant correlate of SITB across clinical and non-clinical samples in addition to identifying study characteristics that contribute to effect size variability. Implications are discussed for SITB research, prevention and intervention.
期刊介绍:
The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.