The Use of Intensive Longitudinal Methods in Research on Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective

Intensive longitudinal methods (ILM), such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and daily diary, involve repeatedly assessing individuals over short periods of time and have been increasingly used to study suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs). Suicidal thoughts have been shown to vary over short periods of time and reports of STBs are subject to negative biases. Therefore, ILM are important methodological tools for studying STBs, ones that capture enhanced precision and realism of data compared to traditional survey methods. The present systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of ILM used to study STBs, including the various EMA and daily diary methodologies used, the feasibility of those methodologies, and the ethical considerations in this line of research. This review also summarizes the characteristics of descriptive STB outcomes specific to the ILM data collection period.

Methods

A thorough search of PubMed and PsycINFO was conducted up to May 2020, resulting in twenty-eight papers reviewed.

Results and conclusions

The review of the studies showed that ILM are largely feasible and do not have a negative impact on participants. In addition, the reviewed studies revealed unique aspects of STBs, such as the variability of suicidal thoughts, that suggest that ILM are important methodologies to use when studying STBs. Gaps in the research and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Highlights

• It is feasible to use ILM to study suicidality.

• ILM do not have a negative impact on participants with suicidality.

• Few studies have used ILM to study suicidality in diverse samples.

Keywords:

• Daily diary
• ecological momentary assessment
• experience sampling methodology
• suicidality
• suicide

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Margaret Andover, Dr. Natasha Burke, and Dr. David Marcotte for their useful comments and suggestions.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

AUTHOR NOTES

Ana Rabasco and Kate Sheehan, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, NY 10458, USA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana Rabasco Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, NY 10458, USA. Email: [email protected].