4.5 Article

Suicidal ideation in early to middle adolescence: sex-specific trajectories and predictors

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 645-653

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12484

Keywords

Suicidal ideation; adolescence; suicide risk

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01MH/DA63711, R01MH079402, T32HD052462]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe present study examined developmental trajectories of suicidal ideation (SI) and predictors of the course of SI across early to middle adolescence in a sample of 521 children utilizing a prospective longitudinal design. MethodA baseline assessment including structured interviews and parent- and adolescent-reported measures was conducted at age 11-12years, with follow-up assessments occurring 6, 12, 18, and 36months later. ResultsGroup-based trajectory analyses revealed three groups of individuals, one group that remained at low ideation scores throughout the time period examined, another group with moderate ideation scores and a minority of children who had fluctuating SI. Sex differences in SI trajectories were revealed with the highest SI scores at age 12 for boys. For boys in this group, high ideation followed by a steady decline in the slope over time. SI in girls demonstrated a quadratic function increasing from age 12 to 13, and decreasing from age 14 to 15. Factors that predicted SI group membership were identified. Depression, externalizing problems, family and friend support discriminated SI trajectories for both boys and girls. History of a suicide attempt was associated with moderate- and high-declining ideation groups for boys, and moderate and high ideation group for girls. ConclusionsAssessment of SI in adolescents should occur in early adolescents, particularly around the time of school transitions. Read the Commentary on this article at doi:

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available