Cited by 38Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Clustering Suicide Attempters: Impulsive-Ambivalent, Well-Planned, or Frequent

Lopez-Castroman, Jorge, Nogue, Erika, Guillaume, Sebastien, Picot, Marie Christine, Courtet, Philippe·2016·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Attempts to predict suicidal behavior within high-risk populations have so far shown insufficient accuracy. Although several psychosocial and clinical features have been consistently associated with suicide attempts, investigations of latent structure in well-characterized populations of suicide attempters are lacking. METHODS: We analyzed a sample of 1,009 hospitalized suicide attempters that were recruited between 1999 and 2012. Eleven clinically relevant items related to the characteristics of suicidal behavior were submitted to a Hierarchical Ascendant Classification. Phenotypic profiles were compared between the resulting clusters. A decisional tree was constructed to facilitate the differentiation of individuals classified within the first 2 clusters. RESULTS: Most individuals were included in a cluster characterized by less lethal means and planning ("impulse-ambivalent"). A second cluster featured more carefully planned attempts ("well-planned"), more alcohol or drug use before the attempt, and more precautions to avoid interruptions. Finally, a small, third cluster included individuals reporting more attempts ("frequent"), more often serious or violent attempts, and an earlier age at first attempt. Differences across clusters by demographic and clinical characteristics were also found, particularly with the third cluster whose participants had experienced high levels of childhood abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster analysis consistently supported 3 distinct clusters of individuals with specific features in their suicidal behaviors and phenotypic profiles that could help clinicians to better focus prevention strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.15m09882

Cites

5 of 5 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lopez-Castroman, J., Nogue, E., Guillaume, S., Picot, M. C., & Courtet, P.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2016-03-29
Volume
77
Issue
06
Pages
e711-e718
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2320394680
Cited by
38
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
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 attempts, suicide attempters, suicide planning, impulsivity, childhood abuse, alcohol and drug use, repeated suicide attempts, violent suicide attempts, suicide prevention, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Trees, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Suicide, Attempted, Cohort Studies, Cluster Analysis, Risk Assessment, 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