MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2138304659 · doi:10.1177/070674371405901101

Nonsuicidal Self-Injury: What We Know, and What We Need to Know

2014· editorial· en· W2138304659 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2014
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Mental Health
Mots-clésPsychologyDistressHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionMental healthEmotional distressPoison controlPsychotherapistEmpirical researchInjury preventionPsychiatryMedicineEpistemologyMedical emergencyAnxiety

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For decades, knowledge about nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) was limited to only a small handful of empirical studies. However, the last 10 to 15 years have witnessed an explosion of research and significant advances in knowledge about NSSI. We now understand much about the classification, prevalence, correlates, forms, and functions of NSSI, and have dispelled many misconceptions. It is time for NSSI researchers to apply tills basic knowledge to develop empirically grounded theoretical models and effective treatments. Tills In Review on NSSI was developed to help the field of mental health move forward in these 2 areas. First, tills editorial briefly reviews what we now know about NSSI. Next, Margaret S Andover and Blair W Morris1 describe an emotion regulation model for understanding and potentially treating NSSI and for explaining the emotion regulation function of NSSI in terms of basic emotion models. Finally, Brianna J Turner, Sara B Austin, and Alexander L Chapman2 provide a systematic review of NSSI treatment outcome research, and note the need for new treatment approaches specifically tailored to targetNSSI. We hope that tills In Review not only provides state-of-the-art knowledge but also motivates and facilitates future efforts to better understand and treat NSSI.NSSI refers to the intentional destmction of one's own body tissue without suicidal intent and for purposes not socially sanctioned.3 4 Coimnon examples include cutting, burning, scratching, and banging or hitting, and most people who self-injure have used multiple methods.3 Because NSSI is typically associated with emotional and psychiatric distress,5,6 and because NSSI increases risk for suicide,7,8 it is cmcial to establish accurate conceptual and clinical models of tills behaviour. In tills introduction to the In Review on NSSI, we summarize what is now known about NSSI (much of which lias been learned in just the past 10 to 15 years), dispel common myths, and describe the 2 review articles featured in tills special section.What We Now KnowDespite some notable exceptions,9-11 few researchers focused attention on NSSI until recently. One might identify the early 2000s as a turning point. Kim L Gratz12 published an influential measure that facilitated research on NSSI, E David Klonsky and colleagues5 found that NSSI is present and associated with psychiatric morbidity even in nonclinical populations, Matthew K Nock and Mitch J Prinstein13 drew attention to the reasons why people engage in NSSI, and Jennifer J Muehlenkamp (see Muehlenkamp14 and Muehlenkamp and Gutierrez15) argued that NSSI should be distinguished from other SIBs, such as attempted suicide, and regarded as an independent clinical syndrome. Each of these publications has been cited in hundreds of subsequent articles, and together they arguably provided a foundation for subsequent work that has answered many key questions about the nature of NSSI, including who self-injures, why people self-injure, and the complex relation between NSSI and suicidal behaviour.Who Self-injures?NSSI is most common among adolescents and young adults. Lifetime rates in these populations are about 15% to 20%,16,17 and onset typically occurs around age 13 or 14.6,18 In contrast, about 6% of adults report a history of NSSI.19,20 It is unclear whether the lower lifetime rate in adults reflects an increase in NSSI among recent cohorts of adolescents or an artifact of memory by which most adults who self- injured as adolescents do not recall their NSSI. Generally speaking, rates of NSSI appear to be similar across different countries.21In both adolescents and adults, rates of NSSI are highest among psychiatric populations, particularly people who report characteristics associated with emotional distress, such as negative emotionality, depression, anxiety, and emotion dysregulation.5,18,22,23 NSSI is especially common in people prone to self-directed negative emotions and self-criticism. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,365
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle