4.5 Article

Reasons for living, hopelessness, and suicide ideation among depressed adults 50 years or older

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 736-741

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e31817b609a

关键词

aging; suicide ideation; reasons for living; hopelessness; depression

资金

  1. United States Public Health Service [R01MH51201, R01MH54682, R01MH60285, K24MH72712, T32 MH20061]
  2. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) Young Investigator Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Adults with mood disorders are at elevated risk for suicide. Psychological features such as hopelessness increase their risk for suicide ideation. Few studies have examined psychological constructs posited to lower risk for suicide ideation. The authors tested the hypothesis that reasons for living (RFL) are inversely related to suicide ideation. Design: This report is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data. Setting: Participants were recruited from the clinical services of three teaching hospitals in Rochester, NY. Participants: The sample consisted of 125 adults 50 years or older receiving treatment for a mood disorder. Measurements: A diagnostic interview and measures of suicide ideation, depression, hopelessness, and RFL were included in the assessment battery. Dependent variables were presence and severity of suicide ideation. Data were analyzed using multivariate logistic and linear regressions. Results: Patients who reported higher levels of fear of suicide were less likely to report suicide ideation. The relationships between hopelessness and both the presence and severity of suicide ideation were stronger among those who reported greater levels of responsibility to family. Conclusions: Clinicians working with at-risk older adults are encouraged to explore their patients' RFL. These cross-sectional findings point to the need for prospective research examining the associations among different RFL, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in depressed older adults.

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

4.5
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