Detecting suicidal thoughts: The power of ecological momentary assessment
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians have typically relied on retrospective reports to monitor suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Smartphone technology has made real-time monitoring of suicidal thoughts possible via mobile ecological momentary assessment (EMA). However, little is known about how information gleaned from EMA compares with that obtained by retrospective reports. The authors sought to compare suicidal ideation (SI) assessed over 1 week using EMA with a retrospective gold-standard interviewer-administered measure covering the same period. METHODS: Fifty-one adults with major depressive disorder completed 1 week of EMA (6×/day) assessing SI. Following completion of EMA, participants completed an interviewer-administered Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI) retrospectively assessing the same week. RESULTS: SI severity assessed through EMA was positively correlated with scores on the retrospective SSI. However, 58% of participants reporting ideation with EMA denied any past-week ideation on the SSI. Participants who endorsed SI during EMA but not on the SSI were no less likely to have a history of suicidal behavior than those who reported SI in both formats. CONCLUSION: EMA captures instances of suicidal thinking that go undetected through retrospective report and thereby may help us to identify an at-risk subgroup otherwise missed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a sample of adults diagnosed with MDD, more than half reported SI through EMA but did not report it on the SSI asking about that same time period.
“For example, in a sample of adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), more than half of the sample reported SI through EMA but did not report it on the SSI asking about that same time period, highlighting a critical weakness associated with retrospective clinical measures (32).”
From New methods for assessing rapid changes in suicide risk (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
The most frequent primary co-morbid diagnoses in the reviewed studies were depressive disorders and borderline personality disorder, but inclusion was typically based on a recent history of self-reported suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
“Most frequent primary co-morbid diagnoses were depressive disorders (83, 84, 86) and borderline personality disorder [BPD (58, 64, 82)]; however, inclusion was typically based on (recent) history of self-reported STBs to ensure sufficient number of observations of STBs during the assessment period.”
From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
Correlations were higher for items assessing active ideation (Wish to die r = 0.76) than for passive ideation (Wish to live r = 0.37).
“Correlations were higher for items assessing active (“Wish to die” r = 0.76) rather than passive ideation (“Wish to live” r = 0.37) (86).”
From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
Among adults, 58% of participants reporting suicidal ideation in EMA did not do so in an interview post-EMA.
“Among adults, 58% of participant reporting SI in EMA did not do so in an interview post-EMA (86).”
From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
EMA reports of active suicidal ideation were more highly correlated with retrospective measures than those of passive ideation.
“We further found that EMA reports of active suicidal ideation were more highly correlated with retrospective measures than those of passive ideation (86).”
From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 120
- Authors
- Gratch, I., Choo, T., Galfalvy, H., Keilp, J. G., Itzhaky, L., Mann, J. J., Oquendo, M. A., & Stanley, B.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Philadelphia Pennsylvania
- Molecular Imaging and Neuropathology Division New York State Psychiatric Institute New York City New York
- Corresponding author
- Gratch, Ilana
- Venue
- Depression and Anxiety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-22
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8-16
- ISSN
- 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6394
- OpenAlex
- W3027181565
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (2P50MH090964, MH109326)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Keywords
- suicidal ideation, ecological momentary assessment, retrospective self-report, major depressive disorder, suicide risk identification, smartphone-based assessment
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Ecological Momentary Assessment, Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Retrospective Studies, Suicidal Ideation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review