Ecological Momentary Assessment of Self-Harm Thoughts and Behaviors: Systematic Review of Constructs From the Integrated Motivational-Volitional Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The integrated motivational-volitional model (IMV) is one of the leading theoretical models of suicidal thoughts and behavior. There has been a recent proliferation in the assessment of suicidal and nonsuicidal self-harm thoughts and behaviors (SHTBs) in daily life. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies in the SHTB literature to address the following questions: (1) Which constructs in the IMV model have been assessed using EMA, and how have they been assessed? (2) Do different constructs from the IMV model fluctuate in daily life? (3) What is the relationship between the different IMV constructs and SHTBs in daily life? METHODS: Consistent with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we conducted systematic searches of 5 databases-Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Europe PMC Preprints-from inception to March 26, 2024. RESULTS: Our searches resulted in the inclusion and narrative synthesis of 53 studies across 58 papers. A total of 15 IMV constructs were measured using EMA across the included papers. The most frequently measured constructs were thwarted belongingness (24/58, 41% of the papers), future thinking (20/58, 34% of the papers), and perceived burdensomeness (16/58, 28% of the papers). The least frequently measured constructs were humiliation, social problem-solving, mental imagery, and perceived capability for suicide. None of the included papers measured memory biases, goals, norms, or resilience using EMA. Comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients (45/58, 78% of the papers) revealed moderate but inconsistent within-person variance across all the examined constructs. We found evidence (39/58, 67% of the papers) of concurrent associations between almost all constructs and SHTBs in daily life, with some evidence that entrapment, shame, rumination, thwarted belongingness, hopelessness, social support, and impulsivity are additionally associated with SHTBs in lagged (ie, longitudinal) relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons were hindered by variation in methodology, including the populations studied, EMA sampling scheme, operationalization of IMV constructs and SHTBs, and statistical approach used. Our findings suggest that EMA studies are a useful methodology for examining risk factors for SHTBs; however, more research is needed for some IMV constructs. Quality assessment suggested several areas for improvement in the reporting of EMA studies in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022349514; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=349514.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,036 | 0,143 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».