Participation in a daily diary study about suicide ideation yields no iatrogenic effects: A mixed method analysis.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1111/sltb.13125
H A Love, P Morgan, P N Smith
{"title":"Participation in a daily diary study about suicide ideation yields no iatrogenic effects: A mixed method analysis.","authors":"H A Love, P Morgan, P N Smith","doi":"10.1111/sltb.13125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite evidence that participation in suicide research is not associated with worsening ideation, behaviors, or intent, the rise of intensive longitudinal methods to assess ideation and behaviors necessitates further investigation for potential iatrogenic effects. The present study assessed rates of change in suicide ideation (SI) in a 10-day daily diary study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-two adult participants with ongoing SI participated in 10 daily diary surveys and three follow-up assessments. One open-ended item was included to address participant experiences in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A multilevel piecewise growth model revealed steady declines in SI for participants over the 10 days. However, rates of SI increased during the follow-up assessments, indicating that participation in the daily surveys was associated with general reductions in SI. Further, qualitative analyses of experiences in the study revealed the following themes: Useful (n = 34), Heightened Awareness (n = 21), Functional (n = 6), Not Useful (n = 6), and Beneficence (n = 4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that participation in suicide research, including intensive longitudinal methods such as daily diary studies, did not have iatrogenic effects on participants with SI. Qualitative results demonstrated the numerous benefits participants derived while taking part in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":39684,"journal":{"name":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.13125","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite evidence that participation in suicide research is not associated with worsening ideation, behaviors, or intent, the rise of intensive longitudinal methods to assess ideation and behaviors necessitates further investigation for potential iatrogenic effects. The present study assessed rates of change in suicide ideation (SI) in a 10-day daily diary study.

Methods: Seventy-two adult participants with ongoing SI participated in 10 daily diary surveys and three follow-up assessments. One open-ended item was included to address participant experiences in the study.

Results: A multilevel piecewise growth model revealed steady declines in SI for participants over the 10 days. However, rates of SI increased during the follow-up assessments, indicating that participation in the daily surveys was associated with general reductions in SI. Further, qualitative analyses of experiences in the study revealed the following themes: Useful (n = 34), Heightened Awareness (n = 21), Functional (n = 6), Not Useful (n = 6), and Beneficence (n = 4).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that participation in suicide research, including intensive longitudinal methods such as daily diary studies, did not have iatrogenic effects on participants with SI. Qualitative results demonstrated the numerous benefits participants derived while taking part in this study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与有关自杀意念的每日日记研究不会产生先天性影响:混合方法分析
导言:尽管有证据表明参与自杀研究与意念、行为或意图的恶化无关,但随着评估意念和行为的纵向强化方法的兴起,有必要进一步调查潜在的先天性影响。本研究在一项为期 10 天的每日日记研究中评估了自杀意念(SI)的变化率:72名有持续自杀意念的成年参与者参加了10次每日日记调查和3次后续评估。其中一个开放式项目涉及参与者在研究中的经历:多层次片断增长模型显示,参与者的 SI 在 10 天内稳步下降。然而,在后续评估中,SI 的比率有所上升,这表明参与日常调查与 SI 的总体下降有关。此外,对研究经验的定性分析揭示了以下主题:有用(34 人)、提高认识(21 人)、功能性(6 人)、无用(6 人)和有益(4 人):本研究表明,参与自杀研究(包括每日日记研究等密集纵向方法)不会对患有 SI 的参与者产生先天性影响。定性结果表明,参与者在参与这项研究时受益匪浅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: An excellent resource for researchers as well as students, Social Cognition features reports on empirical research, self-perception, self-concept, social neuroscience, person-memory integration, social schemata, the development of social cognition, and the role of affect in memory and perception. Three broad concerns define the scope of the journal: - The processes underlying the perception, memory, and judgment of social stimuli - The effects of social, cultural, and affective factors on the processing of information - The behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Development of a peer-delivered lethal means counseling intervention for firearm owning veterans: Peer engagement and exploration of responsibility and safety (PEERS). Risk of self-harm and suicide on reaching the age at which a parent died by suicide or other causes: A Danish, population-based self-controlled case series study. Examining whether method of suicide exposure and closeness to decedent relate to firearm storage practices. An integrated alcohol and suicide intervention for adolescents in inpatient psychiatric treatment. Collaboration and consent in decisions to initiate emergency dispatches for suicide risk: A national qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1