4.6 Article

A suicidal recovery theory to guide individuals on their healing and recovering process following a suicide attempt

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
Volume 69, Issue 9, Pages 2030-2040

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12070

Keywords

grounded theory; mental health; nurses; nursing; recovery process; suicide

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Council [NSC 100-2314-B-214-004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim. To develop a theory to guide the recovery process of a recent suicide attempt. Background. Suicide is one of the 10 leading causes of death in many countries. Many nations have set targets to reduce the high incidence of suicide by aiming to prevent people from taking their own lives and also providing care to promote the healing of those who attempt suicide. Design. A qualitative grounded theory approach was used. Methods. Data were collected in 2011-2012 in a Taiwanese hospital until data saturation occurred. Twenty participants were interviewed, comprising patients who recovered from suicide attempts (N=14) and their caregivers (N=6). Data were analysed using open, axial, and selective coding and using the constant comparison technique. Findings. A substantive theory was formulated to guide the recovery process of people who have recently attempted suicide. The core category that emerged from the data collected was Striving to accept the value of self-in-existence'. Other key categories linked to and embraced in this core category were: becoming flexible and open-minded, re-building a positive sense of self, and endeavouring to live a peaceful and contented life. Conclusion. Nurses could use this theory as a theoretical framework to guide people who are recovering from a suicide attempt by affording them the opportunity to grow and heal, and facilitating the re-building a positive sense of self, acknowledging the uncertainties of life, and inspiring hope.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available