Association Between Religion and Suicidal Behaviors in Cancer Patients

Moreno‐Montoya, José; Palacios‐Espinosa, Ximena; Gracia-Ruiz, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.rcp.2016.09.007

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in our study, all patients that reported having suicidal thoughts almost every day were classified as being clinically distressed in all distress screening instruments, except for one case in the FBK-R23. Among the different factors constituting psychosocial distress, hopelessness and loss of meaning are recurrent themes in many studies that investigated the connection between psychosocial distress and SI [30,31]. We found not only a correlation between SI and hopelessness but also associations between being clinically relevant distressed and hopelessness, independently of the screening instrument.…”

Section: Suicidal Ideation and Psychosocial Distressmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…For example, Zhong et al [29] who also looked at hospitalized patients and used a single-item assessment tool found that 15.3% of patients had suicidal thoughts in the past month. Likewise, Moreno-Montoya et al [30] reported a prevalence of SI of 13.6% in hospitalized cancer patients. Similar percentages among different populations of cancer patients are reported in various studies [31,32].…”

Section: Prevalence Of Suicidal Ideationmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Suicidal ideation, distress, and related factors in a population of cancer patients treated in a general acute hospital

Senf

Bender

Fettel

2021

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Suicidality and suicidal ideation (SI) in oncology has long been an underestimated danger. Although there are cancer-specific distress screening tools available, none of these specifically incorporates items for SI. We examined the prevalence of SI in cancer patients, investigated the relation between SI and distress, and tried to identify additional associated factors. Methods A cross-sectional study with patients treated for cancer in a primary care hospital was conducted. Psychosocial distress and SI in 226 patients was assessed. An expert rating scale (PO-Bado-SF) and a self-assessment instrument (QSC-R23) were used to measure distress. SI was assessed with item 9 of the PHQ-9. Data was descriptively analyzed, and correlations and group comparisons between clinically distressed and non-distressed patients were calculated. Results SI was reported by 15% of patients. Classified as clinically distressed were 24.8% (QSC-R23) to 36.7% (PO-Bado-SF). SI was correlated with externally (rτ = 0.19, p < 0.001) and self-rated distress (rτ = 0.31, p < 0.001). Symptoms sufficiently severe for at least a medium major depressive episode were recorded in 23.5% of patients (PHQ-9). Factors associated with SI were feeling bad about oneself, feeling down, depressed, and hopeless, deficits in activities of daily life, psycho-somatic afflictions, social restrictions, and restrictions in daily life. Being in a steady relationship seemed to have a protective effect. Conclusions SI is common in cancer patients. Distress and associated factors are increased in patients with SI. A distress screening with the ability to assess SI could be an important step in prevention, but more research is necessary.

show abstract

Section: Suicidal Ideation and Psychosocial Distressmentioning

confidence: 47%

Section: Prevalence Of Suicidal Ideationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Suicidal ideation, distress, and related factors in a population of cancer patients treated in a general acute hospital

Senf

Bender

Fettel

2021

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…General psychological distress (Fang et al, 2014;Henry et al, 2018;Lee et al, 2014;Spencer et al, 2012;Walker et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2017), a historical or current psychiatric diagnosis (Madeira et al, 2011;Recklitis et al, 2014;Shim & Park, 2012;Spencer et al, 2012;Trevino, Balboni, Zollfrank, Balboni & Prigerson, 2014) and poorer psychological well-being (Cheng et al, 2014;Leung et al, 2013;Pranckeviciene et al, 2016;Recklitis et al, 2014) were also identified as risk factors. Demoralization (Fang et al, 2014;Nanni et al, 2018;Vehling et al, 2017), hopelessness (Costantini et al, 2014;Diaz-Frutos et al, 2016;Madeira et al, 2011;Moreno-Montoya, Palacios-Espinosa & Gracia-Ruiz, 2017;Xu, Chen, Li, & Dai, 2014;Zhang et al, 2017), and existential well-being (Choi et al, 2014;Fang et al, 2014) were also significant factors associated with SI in patients with cancer…”

Section: Demographic Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Depression/Symptoms of depression (Akechi et al, 2000;Akechi et al, 2001;Cheng et al, 2014;Costantini et al, 2014;Diaz-Frutos et al, 2016;Kim et al, 2013a;Leung et al, 2013;Madeira et al, 2011;Nanni et al, 2018;Recklitis et al, 2010;Recklitis et al, 2014;Spencer et al, 2012;Sun et al, 2011;Sun et al, 2017;Tang et al, 2016;Walker et al, 2010) Small -large Hopelessness (Costantini et al, 2014;Diaz-Frutos et al, 2016;Madeira et al, 2011;Moreno-Montoya et al, 2017;Zhang et al, 2017) Small -large Historical or current psychiatric diagnosis** (Madeira et al, 2011;Recklitis et al, 2014;Shim & Park, 2012;Spencer et al, 2012;Trevino et al, 2014) Small -large Psychological distress/ mental health concerns (Fang et al, 2014;Henry et al, 2018;Lee et al, 2014;Spencer et al, 2012;Walker et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2017) Small -medium Anxiety (Cheng et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2013a;Madeira et al, 2011;Park et al, 2016;Spencer et al, 2012) Small -large General/Psychological Well-being (Cheng et al, 2014;Leung et al, 2013;Pranckeviciene et al, 2016;Recklitis ...…”

Section: Psychological Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicidal ideation in patients with cancer: A systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, intervention and assessment

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesSuicidal ideation (SI) underlies risk of death by suicide. It is well established that patients with cancer are at increased risk of death by suicide. Therefore, understanding SI in patients with cancer is critically important. The goal of this systematic review was to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, intervention, and assessment of SI in patients with cancer.MethodsThis systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42018115405) and was guided by the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and assessed for quality assurance using a revised Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe identified 439 studies to screen for eligibility. Eligible studies included adults with cancer diagnoses and listed SI as an outcome. Ultimately, 44 studies were included in the analyses. Prevalence of SI ranged greatly from 0.7% to 46.3%. Single items drawn from validated measures were the most frequent method of assessing SI (n = 20, 45.5%); additional methods included validated measures and psychological interviews. Commonly identified risk factors for SI included age, sex, and disease/treatment-related characteristics, as well as psychological constructs including depression, anxiety, hopelessness, existential distress, and social support.Significance of ResultsAssessment of SI in patients with cancer is the concern of researchers worldwide. Prevalence of SI varied with study population and was likely influenced by the method of assessment. Psychological distress consistently predicted SI. Increasing awareness of demographic, clinical, and psychological associations is critical for risk assessment and intervention development.

show abstract

“…Por su parte, los instrumentos psicométricos más utilizados para la medición y evaluación de la conducta suicida fueron: el Inventario de Ideación Suicida Positiva y Negativa (PANSI) (11.3%) cuyo objetivo es evaluar factores de riesgo y protección frente a las ideas de suicidio (Luna, et al, 2017;Martínez, et al, 2017;Moreno-Montoya, et al, 2017;Pérez, 2012Siabato, et al, 2016;Villalobos, 2009), el Cuestionario de Plutchick (9%), el cual permite diferenciar entre individuos que no presentan riesgo suicida y los que sí están en él (Aguirre et al, 2015;Álvarez et al, 2013;Amaya et al, 2013;Bahamón, et al, 2018;Pereira-Morales, et al, 2017), y el Inventario de Orientación Suicida (ISO) (4.5%), utilizado para el despistaje de la presencia de riesgo suicida (Gonzales, et al, 2016;Paniagua, et al, 2014;Reyes, et al, 2005;Rodríguez, et al, 2013). Otros instrumentos usados en menor proporción fueron: la Cédula de Indicadores Parasuicidas (CIP), el cual permite conocer la ocurrencia de intentos suicidas y el número de estos a lo largo de la vida, la edad del único o último intento, los motivos y métodos (Villalobos, 2009); el Inventario de Resiliencia ante el Suicidio (IRS-25), diseñado para medir los factores que ayudan a preservar de pensamientos y conductas suicidas (Villalobos, et al, 2012) y el Cuestionario de Ideación Suicida (SIQ) cuyo objetivo es evaluar la frecuencia de una jerarquía de pensamientos suicidas, partiendo desde los posibles pensamientos de desear no estar vivo, hasta pensamientos serios y específicos de matarse a sí mismo (Villalobos, et al, 2012).…”

Section: Técnicas E Instrumentosunclassified

Conducta suicida en Colombia: Una revisión sistemática

Mora

Melo²,

Galvis³

2020

RPPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide behavior in Colombia: A systematic review. The objective of the review was to synthesize the findings about suicide in Colombia between 2004 and 2018. Eighty-eight studies were included in the review. It is noted that most studies focus on risk factors such as depression, psychoactive substance use and family dysfunction; and only few are interested in protective factors, among which family functionality and high self-esteem are prominent; moreover, the statistical models used are mostly descriptive and studies are not based on theoretical models on suicide. Finally, some lines of research are proposed, such as deepening the theoretical models and statistical analyses used, realizing longitudinal studies and proposing intervention strategies that guide future scientific exercises in the area. Keywords: Suicide; suicidal ideation; suicidal intention; Colombia; systematic review. Resumen: El objetivo de la revisión fue sintetizar los hallazgos acerca del suicidio en Colombia entre los años 2004 a 2018. Se incluyeron 88 trabajos en esta revisión. Se destaca que la mayoría de estudios se centran en factores de riesgo como depresión, consumo de sustancias psicoactivas y disfunción familiar; y solo algunos se interesan en factores protectores, entre los que se destacan la funcionalidad familiar y la alta autoestima; además, se encontró que los modelos estadísticos empleados son en su mayoría de tipo descriptivo y los estudios no están basados en modelos teóricos sobre el suicidio. Finalmente, se proponen algunas líneas de trabajo como la profundización de modelos teóricos y análisis estadísticos empleados, la realización de estudios longitudinales y proponer estrategias de intervención, que orienten futuros ejercicios científicos en el área.Palabras clave: Suicidio; ideación suicida; intención suicida; Colombia; revisión sistemática.

show abstract

Association Between Religion and Suicidal Behaviors in Cancer Patients

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Suicidal ideation, distress, and related factors in a population of cancer patients treated in a general acute hospital

Suicidal ideation, distress, and related factors in a population of cancer patients treated in a general acute hospital

Suicidal ideation in patients with cancer: A systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, intervention and assessment

Conducta suicida en Colombia: Una revisión sistemática

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About