4.6 Article

Frequency of prescription opioid misuse and suicidal ideation, planning, and attempts

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 1-7

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.03.011

关键词

Suicide attempts; Suicidal ideation; Opioids; Prescription opioid misuse; Pain relievers; Suicide planning

资金

  1. Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Health Illness Research and Treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between past-year frequency of prescription opioid misuse and past-year suicidal ideation, suicide planning, and suicide attempts. Secondary data analyses were conducted using data from 41,053 participants of the 2014 National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Past-year frequency of prescription opioid misuse was grouped into 4 categories: none, less than monthly (1-11 times), monthly to weekly (12-51 times), and weekly or more (52 times or more). Binomial logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, overall health rating, depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders to test the associations between frequency of prescription opioid misuse and suicide-related variables. Compared to those who did not endorse prescription opioid misuse in the past year, prescription opioid misuse was significantly associated with suicidal ideation, suicide planning, and suicide attempts for each frequency of use category in unadjusted models (p < 0.05). In adjusted models, frequency of prescription opioid misuse remained significantly associated with suicidal ideation (p < 0.05 for each frequency category); however, only the group reporting weekly or more use on average was associated with suicide planning and attempts (p < 0.05). The findings provide novel specificity regarding prescription opioid use in relation to suicide-related outcomes further supporting enhanced access to suicide prevention and nonpharmacological approaches to pain management across various settings. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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