CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health via Writing

Metacognition, rumination and suicidal ideation: an experience sampling test of the self-regulatory executive function model

Hallard, Robert I., Wells, Adrian, Aadahl, Vikki, Emsley, Richard, Pratt, Daniel·2021·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114083
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A relationship between rumination and suicidal ideation is well-evidenced. A role for thought suppression has also been suggested but under-explored. The present study assessed the relative contribution of rumination and a range of thought control strategies in the understanding of suicidal ideation, within the theoretical framework of the self-regulatory executive function (S-REF) model (Wells & Matthews, 2015). Twenty-four participants who had experienced suicidal ideation in the last two months completed trait-level measures of metacognitive beliefs and momentary sampling measures of thought control strategy use, rumination and suicidal ideation over six days. Maladaptive thought control strategy use (worry and punishment), alongside rumination, predicted suicidal ideation. Adaptive strategies (distraction, social control and reappraisal) emerged as negative predictors. Metacognitive beliefs about the need to control thoughts predicted the use of punishment- but not worry-based thought control strategies. Thought control strategy use is as important in the development of suicidal ideation as rumination. The S-REF model represents a promising new approach to understanding these processes in the development of suicidal ideation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114083

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Pseudo-random sampling schedules were most frequently used (57%, n = 13), followed by fixed sampling (26%, n = 6), and combined fixed and pseudo-random sampling (13%, n = 3).

    “(pseudo)random sampling schedules were most frequently used [57%, n = 13 (42, 47, 51, 58, 61, 65, 69, 71, 79, 83, 85, 86, 88)], followed by fixed sampling [26%, n = 6 (45, 66, 67, 72, 80, 82)], and protocols that combined both fixed and (pseudo)random sampling [13%, n = 3 (47, 56, 60)].”

    From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [71]

  • Studies frequently (57%, n = 13) reported that participants could provide input about their daily schedules, allowing EMA prompt windows to be adjusted for each participant.

    “Studies frequently (57%, n = 13; (47, 51, 58, 60, 61, 69, 71, 79–81, 85, 86)) reported that participants could provide input about their daily schedules (incl. sleep and wake times), allowing EMA prompt windows to be adjusted for each participant”

    From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [71]

  • A one-item EMA measure (How suicidal are you right now?) correlated highly with the BSSI (r = 0.71) and moderately with the BDI (r = 0.41).

    “A one-item EMA measure (“How suicidal are you right now?”) correlated highly with the BSSI (r = 0.71) and moderately with the Beck Depression Inventory [BDI (95)] [r = 0.41 (71)].”

    From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [71]

  • Compliance rates were not significantly related to suicide history or current depressive symptom or suicidal ideation severity.

    “Compliance rates were not significantly related to suicide history or current depressive symptom or suicidal ideation severity (65, 66, 71, 85, 88).”

    From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [71]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hallard, R. I., Wells, A., Aadahl, V., Emsley, R., & Pratt, D.
Affiliations
  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Hallard, Robert I.
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
303
Pages
114083
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114083
OpenAlex
W3179845700
Cited by
36
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
suicidal ideation, rumination, metacognition, metacognitive beliefs, thought control strategies, thought suppression, Self-Regulatory Executive Function model, worry, punishment, distraction, social control, cognitive reappraisal
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Ecological Momentary Assessment, Anxiety, Humans, Executive Function, 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