↓ Skip to main content

Risk Factors for Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Bulletin, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 2,619)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
2375 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Risk Factors for Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research
Published in
Psychological Bulletin, January 2017
DOI 10.1037/bul0000084
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) are major public health problems that have not declined appreciably in several decades. One of the first steps to improving the prevention and treatment of STBs is to establish risk factors (i.e., longitudinal predictors). To provide a summary of current knowledge about risk factors, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to longitudinally predict a specific STB-related outcome. This included 365 studies (3,428 total risk factor effect sizes) from the past 50 years. The present random-effects meta-analysis produced several unexpected findings: across odds ratio, hazard ratio, and diagnostic accuracy analyses, prediction was only slightly better than chance for all outcomes; no broad category or subcategory accurately predicted far above chance levels; predictive ability has not improved across 50 years of research; studies rarely examined the combined effect of multiple risk factors; risk factors have been homogenous over time, with 5 broad categories accounting for nearly 80% of all risk factor tests; and the average study was nearly 10 years long, but longer studies did not produce better prediction. The homogeneity of existing research means that the present meta-analysis could only speak to STB risk factor associations within very narrow methodological limits-limits that have not allowed for tests that approximate most STB theories. The present meta-analysis accordingly highlights several fundamental changes needed in future studies. In particular, these findings suggest the need for a shift in focus from risk factors to machine learning-based risk algorithms. (PsycINFO Database Record

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,375 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 7 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 2363 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 249 10%
Student > Master 247 10%
Student > Bachelor 239 10%
Researcher 228 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 163 7%
Other 380 16%
Unknown 869 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 708 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 239 10%
Social Sciences 89 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 3%
Neuroscience 48 2%
Other 256 11%
Unknown 956 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 528. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2026.
All research outputs
#60,068
of 34,404,538 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Bulletin
#39
of 2,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,078
of 462,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Bulletin
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,404,538 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 462,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.