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

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102467
{"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":"","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":null,"pages":null},"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\":\"\",\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自伤想法和行为(SITBs)是导致死亡的主要原因之一,而人际交往过程(IPs)似乎在 SITBs 中扮演着重要角色。本系统性综述综述了日常生活中人际交往过程和 SITBs 的相关文献,并探讨了四个关键问题:(1) 哪些人际交往过程已被评估以及如何评估;(2) 人际交往过程在个体间的差异如何与 SITBs 相关联;(3) 人际交往过程在个体内部的差异如何与 SITBs 相关联;(4) 人际交往过程与自我伤害想法和行为的关系是否不同?我们的综述遵循了 PRISMA 指南,对符合条件的文献进行了筛选,截止日期为 2024 年 4 月 25 日。我们确定了 58 项经验取样研究(32.76% 为每日日记研究),其中大部分研究侧重于主要 SITBs 理论中的 IPs(如受挫的归属感),但大部分研究使用了不一致的操作方法。39 项调查人内关联的研究结果不一。根据 26 项研究,不同个体之间的 IPs 差异是否与 SITBs 相关仍不清楚。有三项研究调查了 IPs 是否与从想法到行为的转变有关,但要得出确切的结论还需要时间模型。有关日常生活中的 IPs 和 SITBs 的研究大多没有定论。有必要采取经过心理测量学验证的测量方法,而未来的日常生活研究将受益于从想法到行动的框架。
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
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.

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
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A meta-analysis
×
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