Cited by 120Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health Research TopicsMental Health via Writing

Detecting suicidal thoughts: The power of ecological momentary assessment

Gratch, Ilana, Choo, Tse‐Hwei, Galfalvy, Hanga, Keilp, John G., Itzhaky, Liat, Mann, J. John, Oquendo, Maria A., Stanley, Barbara·2021·Depression and Anxiety

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

Crossref · 10.1002/da.23043

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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).”
  • 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).”
  • 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).”

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
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