4.1 Article

Suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and neurocognitive dysfunctions among patients with first-episode schizophrenia

期刊

SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 1181-1188

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sltb.12689

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81761128021, 81771452]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7151005]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01MH112180]
  4. Estonian Research Council-European Union Regional Developmental Fund [MOBTT77]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether suicidal ideation or suicide attempts are linked to poor neurocognitive function among individuals with first-episode schizophrenia (FES). Method We performed a cross-sectional study on 159 Chinese inpatients (M-age = 27.1 years; 52.2% females) with minimal-treated FES and collected their suicidal history through interviews and medical records. Neurocognitive performance, psychopathology, and depressive symptoms were assessed using the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, respectively. Results Approximately 1/10 FES inpatients had any suicide attempts, and more than 1/4 reported lifetime suicidal ideation. Inpatients with a suicide attempt or suicidal ideation scored significantly worse in the overall seven neurocognitive domains compared with those without past suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt. Linear regression suggested that suicide attempts were mainly associated with lower scores in working memory and speed of processing, after adjusting for education levels. The associations remained robust after further controlling for psychopathological and depressive symptoms. Conclusion First-episode schizophrenia patients with suicide attempts had more severely impaired neurocognitive performances in specific domains. Fundamental neurocognitive dysfunctions should be assessed, detected, and treated after their suicide risk assessments.

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

4.1
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