4.3 Article

Identifying group-based patterns of suicidal ideation over the first 10 years after moderate-to-severe TBI

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 78, 期 5, 页码 877-891

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jclp.23282

关键词

cluster analysis; suicidal ideation; suicide; TBI Model Systems; traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research [90DPTB0004, 90DPTB0005, 90DPTB0008, 90DPTB0011, 90DPTB0012, 90DPTB0013, 90DPTB0015, 90DPTB0002]
  2. NIDILRR [1004321, 90DPTB0004, 1004322, 90DPTB0005, 1004332, 90DPTB0015, 1004330, 90DPTB0013, 1004329, 90DPTB0012, 1004319, 90DPTB0002, 90DPTB0008, 1004325] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified group-based patterns in suicidal ideation over the first 10 years after traumatic brain injury (TBI), with four distinct patterns emerging. The findings highlight the importance of mental health and suicide risk assessment during chronic recovery from TBI.
Objective To identify group-based patterns in suicidal ideation (SI) over the first 10 years after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods Participants included 9539 individuals in the TBI Model Systems National Database who responded to Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item 9 assessing SI at 1, 2, 5, and/or 10 years post-injury. A k-means cluster analysis was conducted to determine group-based patterns of SI, and pre-injury variables were compared with ANOVAs and chi-square tests. Results SI and attempts decreased over time. Four group-based patterns emerged: Low, increasing, moderate, and decreasing SI. The low SI group comprised 89% of the sample, had the highest pre-injury employment, fewer mental health vulnerabilities, least severe injuries, and were oldest. The increasing SI group had the most severe TBIs, were youngest, and disproportionately Black or Asian/Pacific Islander. Conclusion These findings reinforce the importance of mental health and suicide risk assessment during chronic recovery from TBI.

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

4.3
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