| Literature DB >> 35564679 |
Rebecca Owen1,2, Steven H Jones3, Robert C Dempsey4, Patricia A Gooding1.
Abstract
Contemporary theories of suicide, such as the Schematic Appraisals Model (SAMS), hypothesize that negative perceptions of social support are implicated in the pathways to suicidal experiences. The SAMS predicts that perceived social support influences suicidal ideation through appraisals of defeat and entrapment. However, such pathways have not been investigated in people who have bipolar disorder. This prospective four-month study tested the influence of perceived social support on later suicidal ideation via changes in defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness, in a sample of eighty euthymic participants with bipolar disorder (N = 62 at follow-up). Linear regression models tested the extent to which perceived social support at baseline predicted changes in suicidal ideation at four months directly and indirectly via changes in defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness. Perceived social support did not directly predict changes in suicidal ideation, but there was a significant indirect mediational pathway between perceived social support at baseline and changes in suicidal ideation over time, via changes in defeat, entrapment and hopelessness, supporting the SAMS. Psychological interventions which target negative perceptions of social support early, in tandem with addressing defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness over time, present a potentially effective approach to counter suicidal ideation in people who experience bipolar disorder.Entities:
Keywords: bipolar; mediation; psychosocial; suicidal experiences; suicide
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564679 PMCID: PMC9099991 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Descriptive data for all assessed variables at baseline and four-month follow-up time points.
| BL Mean (SD) | FU Mean (SD) | Min to Max Scores BL (FU) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 12.94 (7.37) | 14.47 (7.45) | −1.50 ( | 0–26 (0–29) |
|
| 31.43 (16.15) | 30.02 (13.52) | 0.75 ( | 2–63 (4–54) |
|
| 29.03 (16.26) | 28.12 (14.77) | 0.49 ( | 0–58 (4–55) |
|
| 61.27 (17.11) | 57.32 (15.32) | 1.86 ( | 21–88 (26–90) |
|
| 7.27 (7.66) | 5.48 (6.42) | − | 0–33 (0–23) |
|
| 120.00 (27.24) | 124.28 (22.89) | −1.53 ( | 49–172 (69–165) |
Key: BL = Baseline; FU = Follow-up. BSSI scores were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the standardized test statistic is shown in italics. Analyses of the differences between the mean or median scores across the two time points are shown as t- or Z- (in italics) scores.
Correlation coefficients for predictor variable, changes in the mediator/moderator variables, and the change in the outcome variable used in the regression model.
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.16 | 0.28 * | 0.26 * | 0.08 | −0.02 |
|
| ----- | 0.71 ** | 0.66 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.51 ** |
|
| ----- | 0.66** | 0.25 * | 0.45 ** | |
|
| ----- | 0.36 ** | 0.40 ** | ||
|
| ----- | 0.23 | |||
|
| ----- |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Direct and indirect effects of social support on changes in suicidal ideation via defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness.
| Outcome | Predictor | Beta Coefficient | SE |
|
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Baseline social support | 0.20 | 0.09 | 2.10 | 0.04 | 0.01–0.38 |
| Change in depression | 0.68 | 0.09 | 7.33 | 0.00 | 0.50–0.87 | |
|
| Baseline social support | 0.27 | 0.10 | 2.64 | 0.01 | 0.07–0.48 |
| Change in depression | 0.55 | 0.10 | 5.32 | 0.00001 | 0.34–0.76 | |
|
| Baseline social support | 0.27 | 0.10 | 2.55 | 0.01 | 0.06–0.47 |
| Change in depression | 0.55 | 0.11 | 5.26 | 0.00001 | 0.34–0.76 | |
|
| Baseline social support | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.97 | 0.34 | −0.88–2.51 |
| Change in defeat | 2.76 | 1.52 | 1.82 | 0.08 | −0.29–5.80 | |
| Change in entrapment | −2.10 | 1.22 | −1.72 | 0.09 | −4.55–0.35 | |
| Change in hopelessness | 2.65 | 1.34 | 1.98 | 0.05 | −0.04–5.34 | |
| Change in depression | −0.24 | 1.12 | −0.21 | 0.83 | −2.49–2.01 | |
Bivariate correlations between the key study variables at baseline and four-month follow-up.
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.79 ** | 0.75 ** | −0.50 ** | −0.20 | |||
|
| 0.78 ** | −0.52 ** | −0.30 * | ||||
|
| −0.40 ** | −0.43 ** | |||||
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.66 ** | ||||||
|
| −0.40 ** | ||||||
|
|
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Key: BL = Baseline; FU = Follow-up; CES-D = Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; BHS = Beck Hopelessness Scale; BSSI = Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation; PRQ = Personal Resource Questionnaire. The italicized values indicate that the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient for parametric data was used, whereas the non-italicized values indicate that Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used.