Abstract
According to SAMHSA (Citation2023), approximately 16,600,000 American adults and teens reported having serious thoughts of suicide in 2022. While suicide prevention has primarily focused on suicide deaths and attempts, we contend that suicidal ideation (SI) deserves more in-depth investigation and should be an essential intervention target on its own. In support of this point, we provide three examples of ways to improve specificity in understanding of SI through the study of controllability of SI, the language used to assess SI, and measuring SI in real time. We also consider qualitative work on the content of SI, its treatment, and definitional considerations. We thus call for an increased general focus on SI within research, clinical care, and policy.
Correction Statement
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2319537)
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Dr. Jobes receives book roylaties from Guilford Press and he is a founder and co-owner of CAMS-care, LLC (a professional training an consultation company). No other potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
David A. Jobes
David A. Jobes and Abby A. Mandel, Department of Psychology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.
Abby A. Mandel
David A. Jobes and Abby A. Mandel, Department of Psychology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.
Evan M. Kleiman
Evan M. Kleiman, Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Craig J. Bryan
Craig J. Bryan, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Sheri L. Johnson
Sheri L. Johnson, Department of Psychology, University of California – Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Thomas E. Joiner
Thomas E. Joiner, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.