Intervening on high-risk responses during ecological momentary assessment of suicidal thoughts: Is there an effect on study data?
Intervening on high-risk responses during ecological momentary assessment of suicidal thoughts: Is there an effect on study data?
复制标题
在自杀念头的生态瞬时评估过程中对高风险反应进行干预：对研究数据有影响吗？
DOI：
10.1037/pas0001288
复制
发表时间：
2024
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Nock,MatthewK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bentley,KateH;Millner,AlexanderJ;Bear,Adam;Follet,Lia;Fortgang,RebeccaG;Zuromski,KellyL;Kleiman,EvanM;Coppersmith,DanielDL;Castro-Ramirez,Franchesca;Millgram,Yael;Haim,Adam;Bird,SuzanneA;Nock,MatthewK
生态瞬时评估（EMA）越来越多地用于研究自杀想法和行为（STBs）。当研究人员在真实的时间内收到有关自杀想法的信息时，他们有潜在的道德义务进行干预。然而，一个可能的担忧是，在EMA研究期间收到表明自杀风险高的回复时进行干预可能会影响参与者对自杀想法问题的反应，从而影响收集数据的有效性和完整性。我们利用了一项在医院就诊期间招募的成人和青少年（N= 434）的研究数据，以检查对高风险反应的监测和干预是否会影响随后的参与者反应。总的来说，我们发现对高风险反应的干预影响参与者的评级的观点得到了不同的支持。虽然我们观察到一些证据表明，在用于触发响应相关干预措施的阈值处，后续响应存在不连续性，但尚不清楚这种不连续性是否是由干预措施引起的;较低的后续响应可能是由于有效的干预措施、参与者不希望再次被联系或回归均值。重要的是，完成调查的可能性并没有改变，从之前到之后的反应视情况而定的干预。然而，青少年比成年人更有可能在观看自动响应-视情况而定的弹出消息后将其初始自杀意图评级从高于高风险阈值改为低于高风险阈值。需要进行明确设计的研究，以评估干预对实时监测研究中高风险反应的潜在影响，因为这将为在高自杀风险时刻进行干预提供有效，可扩展的策略。
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is increasingly used to study suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs). There is a potential ethical obligation for researchers to intervene when receiving information about suicidal thoughts in real time. A possible concern, however, is that intervening when receiving responses that indicate high risk for suicide during EMA research may impact how participants respond to questions about suicidal thoughts and thus affect the validity and integrity of collected data. We leveraged data from a study of adults and adolescents (N= 434) recruited during a hospital visit for STBs to examine whether monitoring and intervening on high-risk responses affects subsequent participant responding. Overall, we found mixed support for the notion that intervening on high-risk responses influences participants’ ratings. Although we observed some evidence of discontinuity in subsequent responses at the threshold used to trigger response-contingent interventions, it was not clear that such discontinuity was caused by the interventions; lower subsequent responses could be due to effective intervention, participant desire to not be contacted again, or regression to the mean. Importantly, the likelihood of completing surveys did not change from before to after response-contingent intervention. Adolescents were significantly more likely than adults, however, to change their initial suicidal intent ratings from above to below the high-risk threshold after viewing automated response-contingent pop-up messages. Studies explicitly designed to assess the potential impact of intervening on high-risk responses in real-time monitoring research are needed, as this will inform effective, scalable strategies for intervening during moments of high suicide risk.