4.7 Article

Risk and protective factors predicting multiple suicide attempts

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 210, 期 3, 页码 957-961

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.09.026

关键词

Self-injurious behavior; Demography; Mood disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared demographical and clinical variables between first and multiple suicide attempters and investigated risk and protective factors predicting multiple attempts. 228 patients visiting emergency department after attempting suicide were divided into two groups: first attempter (n=148, 64.9%) and multiple attempter (n=80, 35.1%). Demographic variables, clinical characteristics, factors related with suicide behavior, and psychiatric resources between two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate risk and protective factors predicting multiple attempts. The results showed that multiple attempters were younger, not married, more severe in psychopathology (e.g., psychiatric disorder, personality disorder, lower function, and suicide family history) and suicidality (e.g., repetitive/severe/continuous suicide ideation), and lower in psychiatric resources (e.g., interpersonal stress/conflict, conflicting interpersonal relationship, socially isolated, lower personal achievement, and lower ability to control emotion) than first attempters. Suicide ideation severity and conflicting interpersonal relationships predicted multiple suicide attempts, whereas past year's highest global functioning score and age over 45 protected against multiple suicide attempts. This study demonstrated that multiple suicide attempters have more severe clinical profile than first suicide attempters. Moreover, decreasing severity of suicide ideation, improving interpersonal relationships, and enhancing functioning level of suicide attempters might be important in preventing them from re-attempting suicide. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.7
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