Julie J. Janssens , Glenn Kiekens , Marieke Jaeken , Olivia J. Kirtley
{"title":"对自我伤害思想和行为的经验取样研究中的人际交往过程及其测量方法进行系统回顾","authors":"Julie J. Janssens , Glenn Kiekens , Marieke Jaeken , Olivia J. Kirtley","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITBs) are a leading cause of death, and interpersonal processes (IPs) appear to play a role in SITBs. This systematic review synthesises the literature on IPs and SITBs in daily life and addresses four critical questions: (1) Which IPs have been assessed and how, (2) How are differences in IPs <em>between</em> individuals associated with SITBs?, (3) How are differences in IPs <em>within</em> individuals associated with SITBs? and (4) Do IPs relate differently to self-injurious thoughts than behaviours? Our review followed PRISMA guidelines and eligible literature was screened until 25 April 2024. We identified 58 Experience Sampling studies (32.76% daily-diary studies) of which most focused on IPs from major SITBs theories (e.g., thwarted belongingness) but largely used inconsistent operationalizations. Results from 39 studies investigating within-person associations were mixed. Based on 26 studies, whether differences in IPs between individuals relate to SITBs remains unclear. Three studies have investigated whether IPs relate to the transition from thoughts to behaviours, but temporal models are needed to draw firm conclusions. Studies investigating IPs and SITBs in daily life are largely inconclusive. Psychometrically validated measures are warranted, and future daily-life studies would benefit from drawing on ideation-to-action frameworks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 102467"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of interpersonal processes and their measurement within experience sampling studies of self-injurious thoughts and behaviours\",\"authors\":\"Julie J. Janssens , Glenn Kiekens , Marieke Jaeken , Olivia J. Kirtley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITBs) are a leading cause of death, and interpersonal processes (IPs) appear to play a role in SITBs. This systematic review synthesises the literature on IPs and SITBs in daily life and addresses four critical questions: (1) Which IPs have been assessed and how, (2) How are differences in IPs <em>between</em> individuals associated with SITBs?, (3) How are differences in IPs <em>within</em> individuals associated with SITBs? and (4) Do IPs relate differently to self-injurious thoughts than behaviours? Our review followed PRISMA guidelines and eligible literature was screened until 25 April 2024. We identified 58 Experience Sampling studies (32.76% daily-diary studies) of which most focused on IPs from major SITBs theories (e.g., thwarted belongingness) but largely used inconsistent operationalizations. Results from 39 studies investigating within-person associations were mixed. Based on 26 studies, whether differences in IPs between individuals relate to SITBs remains unclear. Three studies have investigated whether IPs relate to the transition from thoughts to behaviours, but temporal models are needed to draw firm conclusions. Studies investigating IPs and SITBs in daily life are largely inconclusive. Psychometrically validated measures are warranted, and future daily-life studies would benefit from drawing on ideation-to-action frameworks.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102467\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000886\",\"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/S0272735824000886","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review of interpersonal processes and their measurement within experience sampling studies of self-injurious thoughts and behaviours
Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITBs) are a leading cause of death, and interpersonal processes (IPs) appear to play a role in SITBs. This systematic review synthesises the literature on IPs and SITBs in daily life and addresses four critical questions: (1) Which IPs have been assessed and how, (2) How are differences in IPs between individuals associated with SITBs?, (3) How are differences in IPs within individuals associated with SITBs? and (4) Do IPs relate differently to self-injurious thoughts than behaviours? Our review followed PRISMA guidelines and eligible literature was screened until 25 April 2024. We identified 58 Experience Sampling studies (32.76% daily-diary studies) of which most focused on IPs from major SITBs theories (e.g., thwarted belongingness) but largely used inconsistent operationalizations. Results from 39 studies investigating within-person associations were mixed. Based on 26 studies, whether differences in IPs between individuals relate to SITBs remains unclear. Three studies have investigated whether IPs relate to the transition from thoughts to behaviours, but temporal models are needed to draw firm conclusions. Studies investigating IPs and SITBs in daily life are largely inconclusive. Psychometrically validated measures are warranted, and future daily-life studies would benefit from drawing on ideation-to-action frameworks.
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.