4.3 Article

Risk Factors for Concurrent Suicidal Ideation and Violent Impulses in Military Veterans

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 425-435

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000490

关键词

suicide; violence; veterans; risk assessment; PTSD

资金

  1. VA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center
  2. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [R34 AT008399-01]
  3. Clinical Science Research and Development Service of the VA Office of Research and Development [IK2 CX000525]
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Career Development Award [11K2RX000908]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Suicide and violence are significant problems in a subset of Iraq/Afghanistan-era veterans. This study investigates how posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and resilience in veterans are associated with suicidal ideation and violent impulses while controlling for known covariates of both adverse outcomes. Structured clinical interviews were conducted of N = 2,543 Iraq/Afghanistan-era U.S. veterans. Compared with veterans denying suicidal ideation or violent impulses (n = 1,927), veterans endorsing both (n = 171) were more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD, report childhood abuse, combat exposure, physical pain symptoms, and drug misuse, and less likely to endorse self-direction/life purpose. Veterans reporting concurrent suicidal ideation and violent impulses had higher odds of misusing drugs and reporting pain symptoms relative to veterans reporting suicidal ideation only (n = 186) and had lower odds of endorsing self-direction/life purpose compared with veterans reporting violent impulses only (n = 259). The findings underscore the importance of examining drug abuse, physical pain symptoms, and self-direction/life purpose, as well as PTSD and history of trauma, in the context of clinical assessment and empirical research aimed at optimizing risk management of suicide and violence in military veterans.

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