在研究癌症患者自杀想法和行为的风险和保护因素时,在多大程度上考虑了心理变量?对 70 年研究的系统回顾

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102413
Mareike Ernst , Tamara Schwinn , Judith Hirschmiller , Seonaid Cleare , Kathryn A. Robb , Elmar Brähler , Rüdiger Zwerenz , Jörg Wiltink , Rory C. O'Connor , Manfred E. Beutel
{"title":"在研究癌症患者自杀想法和行为的风险和保护因素时,在多大程度上考虑了心理变量?对 70 年研究的系统回顾","authors":"Mareike Ernst ,&nbsp;Tamara Schwinn ,&nbsp;Judith Hirschmiller ,&nbsp;Seonaid Cleare ,&nbsp;Kathryn A. Robb ,&nbsp;Elmar Brähler ,&nbsp;Rüdiger Zwerenz ,&nbsp;Jörg Wiltink ,&nbsp;Rory C. O'Connor ,&nbsp;Manfred E. Beutel","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Psychological variables substantially shape the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, it is unclear to what extent they are considered in individuals with cancer. We synthesized the quantitative research landscape concerning psychological risk/protective factors of STBs in the (psycho-) oncological context.</p><p>This pre-registered review (PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484) systematically searched the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (as well as the grey literature and preprints). Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the ROBINS-I tool.</p><p>Of 11,159 retrieved records, 319 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 163 (51.1%) had investigated psychological factors (affective: <em>n</em> = 155; social: <em>n</em> = 65; cognitive: <em>n</em> = 63; personality/individual differences: <em>n</em> = 37; life events: <em>n</em> = 6), in a combined 3,561,741 participants. The most common STBs were suicidal ideation (<em>n</em> = 107) or death wishes (<em>n</em> = 20) rather than behaviour (suicide deaths: <em>n</em> = 26; attempts: <em>n</em> = 14). Most studies had a serious RoB. Thus, a large body of research investigated STBs in cancer patients/survivors, but it rarely aligned with the theoretical or clinical developments in suicide research. We propose a conceptual model of STBs in cancer delineating moderation and mediation effects to advance the integration of the fields, and to inform future research and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 102413"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000345/pdfft?md5=b495c01c11b80213f60b17ed8e7aa210&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000345-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To what extent are psychological variables considered in the study of risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in individuals with cancer? A systematic review of 70 years of research\",\"authors\":\"Mareike Ernst ,&nbsp;Tamara Schwinn ,&nbsp;Judith Hirschmiller ,&nbsp;Seonaid Cleare ,&nbsp;Kathryn A. Robb ,&nbsp;Elmar Brähler ,&nbsp;Rüdiger Zwerenz ,&nbsp;Jörg Wiltink ,&nbsp;Rory C. O'Connor ,&nbsp;Manfred E. Beutel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Psychological variables substantially shape the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, it is unclear to what extent they are considered in individuals with cancer. We synthesized the quantitative research landscape concerning psychological risk/protective factors of STBs in the (psycho-) oncological context.</p><p>This pre-registered review (PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484) systematically searched the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (as well as the grey literature and preprints). Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the ROBINS-I tool.</p><p>Of 11,159 retrieved records, 319 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 163 (51.1%) had investigated psychological factors (affective: <em>n</em> = 155; social: <em>n</em> = 65; cognitive: <em>n</em> = 63; personality/individual differences: <em>n</em> = 37; life events: <em>n</em> = 6), in a combined 3,561,741 participants. The most common STBs were suicidal ideation (<em>n</em> = 107) or death wishes (<em>n</em> = 20) rather than behaviour (suicide deaths: <em>n</em> = 26; attempts: <em>n</em> = 14). Most studies had a serious RoB. Thus, a large body of research investigated STBs in cancer patients/survivors, but it rarely aligned with the theoretical or clinical developments in suicide research. We propose a conceptual model of STBs in cancer delineating moderation and mediation effects to advance the integration of the fields, and to inform future research and practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"109 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000345/pdfft?md5=b495c01c11b80213f60b17ed8e7aa210&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000345-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000345\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000345","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理变量在很大程度上影响着自杀想法和行为(STBs)的风险。然而,目前还不清楚癌症患者在多大程度上考虑了这些因素。我们综合了有关(心理)肿瘤背景下 STB 的心理风险/保护因素的定量研究情况。这篇预先登记的综述(PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484)系统地检索了 PubMed/Medline、CINAHL、PsycInfo、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 等数据库(以及灰色文献和预印本)。在检索到的 11,159 条记录中,有 319 项研究符合纳入条件。其中,163 项研究(51.1%)调查了心理因素(情感因素:n = 155;社会因素:n = 65;认知因素:n = 63;个性/个体差异:n = 37;生活事件:n = 6),参与人数共计 3,561,741 人。最常见的 STB 是自杀意念(n = 107)或死亡愿望(n = 20),而不是行为(自杀死亡:n = 26;自杀未遂:n = 14)。大多数研究都有严重的 RoB。因此,大量研究调查了癌症患者/幸存者的 STB,但这些研究很少与自杀研究的理论或临床发展相一致。我们提出了癌症 STB 的概念模型,划分了调节效应和中介效应,以促进两个领域的融合,并为未来的研究和实践提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
To what extent are psychological variables considered in the study of risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in individuals with cancer? A systematic review of 70 years of research

Psychological variables substantially shape the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, it is unclear to what extent they are considered in individuals with cancer. We synthesized the quantitative research landscape concerning psychological risk/protective factors of STBs in the (psycho-) oncological context.

This pre-registered review (PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484) systematically searched the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (as well as the grey literature and preprints). Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the ROBINS-I tool.

Of 11,159 retrieved records, 319 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 163 (51.1%) had investigated psychological factors (affective: n = 155; social: n = 65; cognitive: n = 63; personality/individual differences: n = 37; life events: n = 6), in a combined 3,561,741 participants. The most common STBs were suicidal ideation (n = 107) or death wishes (n = 20) rather than behaviour (suicide deaths: n = 26; attempts: n = 14). Most studies had a serious RoB. Thus, a large body of research investigated STBs in cancer patients/survivors, but it rarely aligned with the theoretical or clinical developments in suicide research. We propose a conceptual model of STBs in cancer delineating moderation and mediation effects to advance the integration of the fields, and to inform future research and practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
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