Catherine R Glenn1,2,3, Evan M Kleiman4, Jaclyn C Kearns1, Angela C Santee1, Erika C Esposito1, Yeates Conwell2, Linda J Alpert-Gillis2,5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Rochester. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center. 3. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University. 4. Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center.
Abstract
Objective: The study purpose was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of intensive ecological momentary assessment (EMA) among high-risk adolescents with suicidal thoughts and behaviors following discharge from acute psychiatric care.Method: Fifty-three adolescents, 12-18 years old, and their parents, were recruited following discharge from acute psychiatric care for suicide risk. The study included a baseline assessment (adolescent and parent), 28 days of EMA surveys (5x per day) and wrist actigraphy (adolescent), and an interview at the end of the 28-day monitoring period (adolescent). Adolescents' outpatient clinicians were also surveyed about the study. Results: Study feasibility was indicated by a reasonable enrollment rate, high adherence to wearing the actigraphy device, and good adherence to EMA surveys (highest in the first week with significant drop-off in subsequent weeks). Adolescents reported their overall experience in the study was positive, the questions were understandable, their responses to questions were generally accurate, and the surveys were minimally burdensome. The study procedures did not appear to be iatrogenic; suicide attempts and rehospitalizations were not study related and occurred at a rate comparable to other adolescents at the recruitment site. Adolescents' clinicians reported that the study was somewhat positive and minimally burdensome for them, and somewhat positive for their patients and families.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that intensive EMA designs are feasible and acceptable among high-risk suicidal youth following acute psychiatric care. Specific procedures are provided for keeping adolescents safe during intensive EMA studies, including detailed information about the risk and safety monitoring plan.
Objective: The study purpose was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of intensive ecological momentary assessment (EMA) among high-risk adolescents with suicidal thoughts and behaviors following discharge from acute psychiatric care.Method: Fifty-three adolescents, 12-18 years old, and their parents, were recruited following discharge from acute psychiatric care for suicide risk. The study included a baseline assessment (adolescent and parent), 28 days of EMA surveys (5x per day) and wrist actigraphy (adolescent), and an interview at the end of the 28-day monitoring period (adolescent). Adolescents' outpatient clinicians were also surveyed about the study. Results: Study feasibility was indicated by a reasonable enrollment rate, high adherence to wearing the actigraphy device, and good adherence to EMA surveys (highest in the first week with significant drop-off in subsequent weeks). Adolescents reported their overall experience in the study was positive, the questions were understandable, their responses to questions were generally accurate, and the surveys were minimally burdensome. The study procedures did not appear to be iatrogenic; suicide attempts and rehospitalizations were not study related and occurred at a rate comparable to other adolescents at the recruitment site. Adolescents' clinicians reported that the study was somewhat positive and minimally burdensome for them, and somewhat positive for their patients and families.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that intensive EMA designs are feasible and acceptable among high-risk suicidal youth following acute psychiatric care. Specific procedures are provided for keeping adolescents safe during intensive EMA studies, including detailed information about the risk and safety monitoring plan.
Authors: Lindsay H Dewa; Sofia Pappa; Talya Greene; James Cooke; Lizzie Mitchell; Molly Hadley; Martina Di Simplicio; Thomas Woodcock; Paul Aylin Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: Randy P Auerbach; David Pagliaccio; Grace O Allison; Kira L Alqueza; Maria Fernanda Alonso Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: John Torous; Sandra Bucci; Imogen H Bell; Lars V Kessing; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Pauline Whelan; Andre F Carvalho; Matcheri Keshavan; Jake Linardon; Joseph Firth Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Leslie Adams; Godwin Igbinedion; Aubrey DeVinney; Enoch Azasu; Paul Nestadt; Johannes Thrul; Sean Joe Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-10-20
Authors: José Enrique Layrón Folgado; Andrea Conchado Peiró; José H Marco; María Luisa Barrigón; Enrique Baca-García; Sandra Pérez Rodríguez Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 4.157