4.6 Article

Nonsuicidal Self-Injury as a Gateway to Suicide in Young Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 486-492

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.010

关键词

Nonsuicidal self-injury; Suicide thoughts and behaviors; Young adults; Mental health

资金

  1. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the extent to which nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) contributes to later suicide thoughts and behaviors (STB) independent of shared risk factors. Methods: One thousand four hundred and sixty-six students at five U.S. colleges participated in a longitudinal study of the relationship between NSSI and suicide. NSSI, suicide history, and common risk/protective factors were assessed annually for three years. Analyses tested the hypotheses that the practice of NSSI prior to STB and suicide behavior (excluding ideation) reduced inhibition to later STB independent of shared risk factors. Analyses also examined factors that predicted subsequent STB among individuals with NSSI history. Results: History of NSSI did significantly predict concurrent or later STB (AOR 2.8, 95%, CI 1.9-4.1) independent of covariates common to both. Among those with prior or concurrent NSSI, risk of STB is predicted by > 20 lifetime NSSI incidents (AOR 3.8, 95% CI, 1.4-10.3) and history of mental health treatment (AOR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.9-4.6). Risk of moving from NSSI to STB is decreased by presence of meaning in life (AOR.6, 95% CI, .5-.7) and reporting parents as confidants (AOR,.3, 95% CI,.1-.9). Conclusions: NSSI prior to suicide behavior serves as a gateway behavior for suicide and may reduce inhibition through habituation to self-injury. Treatments focusing on enhancing perceived meaning in life and building positive relationships with others, particularly parents, may be particularly effective in reducing suicide risk among youth with a history of NSSI. (C) 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据