4.7 Article

The ebb and flow of the wish to live and the wish to die among suicidal military personnel

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 202, 期 -, 页码 58-66

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.049

关键词

Suicide; Military; Brief cognitive behavioral therapy; Suicidal ambivalence

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-09-1-0569]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The relative balance between the wish to live and the wish to die (i.e., suicidal ambivalence) is a robust predictor of suicidal behavior and may be a mechanism underlying the effectiveness of treatments that reduce suicidal behaviors. To date, however, few studies have explored possible mechanisms of action in these treatments. Method: Active duty Soldiers (N=152) with a recent suicide attempt and/or active suicide ideation were randomized to receive brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) or treatment as usual (TAU). The Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Inventory (Linehan et al., 2006a) was used to assess the incidence of suicide attempts during the 2-year follow-up. The wish to live and the wish to die were assessed with items 1 and 2, respectively, of the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (Beck and Steer, 1991). Results: Across both treatments, the wish to live was significantly weaker among patients who attempted suicide but the wish to die was stronger only among patients who attempted suicide in TAU. Among nonattempters, the wish to die stabilized the wish to live, but among attempters the wish to live and the wish to die were not associated with each other. In BCBT the wish to live destabilized the wish to die among nonattempters. Limitations: Self-report methodology, predominantly male sample. Conclusions: The emergence of suicidal behavior is driven primarily by the absence of the wish to live. BCBT is associated with a unique coupling of an ambivalent wish to live and wish to die, which may suggest an underlying mechanism of action. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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