CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recent advances in differentiating suicide attempters from suicide ideators

Klonsky, E. David, Qiu, Tianyou, Saffer, Boaz Y.·2017·Current Opinion in Psychiatry
DOI 10.1097/yco.0000000000000294
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article summarizes findings from recent studies (published since 2015) examining differences between suicide attempters and suicide ideators. RECENT FINDINGS: Converging evidence suggests that the capability to attempt suicide (e.g., acquired capability, painful and provocative experiences, high tolerance for pain and distress) is higher in suicide attempters than suicide ideators. Other psychosocial and biological differences have also been identified but require replication. SUMMARY: Recent literature reviews find that traditional risk factors for suicide - such as depression, hopelessness, most psychiatric disorders, and even impulsivity - robustly predict suicide ideation but poorly predict suicide attempts among ideators. To address this knowledge gap, studies are increasingly employing an ideation-to-action framework. This framework views the development of suicide ideation and the progression from ideation to potentially lethal attempts as distinct processes with distinct explanations and predictors. Converging evidence suggests that factors associated with diminished fear of pain, injury, and death can increase one's capability to attempt suicide and facilitate the progression from suicidal thoughts to suicidal acts. Recent studies have also identified other variables that may differentiate attempters from ideators, but these require replication. Theories of suicide positioned within the ideation-to-action framework provide testable and promising hypotheses about the progression from ideation to attempts. These include the Interpersonal Theory, Integrated Motivational-Volitional Model, and Three-Step Theory.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/yco.0000000000000294

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–192 of 192

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Klonsky, E. D., Qiu, T., & Saffer, B. Y.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Klonsky, E. David
ORCID
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
15-20
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/yco.0000000000000294
OpenAlex
W2540513568
Semantic Scholar
cbea48f123f88ad85a207303b46f30ddb2452e06
Cited by
193
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
suicide attempters, suicidal ideation, ideation-to-action framework, acquired capability, pain tolerance, fear of death, suicide risk factors, interpersonal theory of suicide, integrated motivational-volitional model, depression, hopelessness
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Suicide, Attempted, 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