CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Executive function and suicidality: A systematic qualitative review

Open access
Bredemeier, Keith, Miller, Ivan W.·2015·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.005PMC PMC5064868
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Deficits in executive function (EF) have been proposed as a possible explanation for the “cognitive rigidity” often observed in suicidal individuals. This article provides a systematic review of the existing literature testing relations between EF and suicidality, across various diagnostic and demographic populations, using the influential multidimensional model of EF proposed by Miyake and colleagues (2000) as an organizing framework. Forty-three journal articles on this topic published before January of 2014 were reviewed. Collectively, results from these studies provide tentative support for an association between EF deficits and suicidality. However, there is some evidence that this association is moderated other factors (e.g., suicide attempt lethality). Importantly, this relationship may vary across diagnostic groups. Specifically, more studies that used depressive disorder samples reported some positive findings (75%), followed by mixed diagnostic samples (54%). In contrast, fewer positive findings have emerged from studies with bipolar or psychotic disorder samples (29% and 33% respectively), and some even found that suicidality is associated with better EF in individuals with psychotic disorders. Firm conclusions about relationships between specific dimensions of EF and/or aspects of suicidality are difficult to draw this time. Limitations of the existing literature and corresponding directions for future research are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.005

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Longer follow-up periods are most often used to maximize the number of suicidal thoughts and behaviors available for analysis.

    “an obstacle most often addressed by including longer follow-up periods so as to maximize the number of STBs available for analysis (Bredemeier & Miller, 2015; Franklin et al., 2017; Wenzel et al., 2011), thus the pattern found in the current review of median follow-up lengths increasing substantially with severity of STB.”

    From Sleep and suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (2020) · cites this paper as Bredemeier & Miller, 2015

    The Discussion section (‘Alternative study designs’; page not provided) identifies extending follow-up as a way to address the low incidence of suicidality in prospective studies. It does not say longer follow-ups are the most often used approach or report how frequently researchers use them. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bredemeier, K., & Miller, I. W.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Bredemeier, Keith
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
40
Pages
170-183
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.005
PMC
PMC5064868
OpenAlex
W860109609
Semantic Scholar
1119f7c98662154f46c348137d0739eca8905b7b
Cited by
160
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
executive function, suicidality, cognitive rigidity, suicide attempts, suicide attempt lethality, depressive disorders, bipolar disorder, psychosis, neuropsychological deficits
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Humans, Suicide, Executive Function

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