Childhood trauma increases vulnerability to attempt suicide in adulthood through avoidant attachment.

BACKGROUND: Childhood trauma and affective disorders are known risk factors for adult suicidal behavior. Studies have shown a mediating effect of insecure attachment on the effect of childhood trauma and suicidal behavior but so far it is not clear whether this effect is related to an attachment dimension (anxiety, avoidance). AIM: The present study sought to examine the mediating effect of attachment anxiety and avoidance on suicidal behavior. METHODS: We analyzed data on childhood trauma, attachment style, depression severity, presence of prior suicide attempts and current suicide ideation from 96 patients diagnosed with an affective disorder. Two mediation analyses were conducted to assess the effect of childhood trauma on 1) prior suicide attempts and 2) current suicidal ideation through its effect on attachment. RESULTS: We found that childhood trauma had a complete mediated effect on the presence of prior suicide attempts through its effect on avoidant attachment (a1b1 = 0.0120, 95%-CI [0.0031, 0.0276]). However, only emotional abuse had a direct influence on suicidal ideation (c' = 0.0273, p < 0.01) without any indirect effect of anxious or avoidant attachment. LIMITATIONS: Variables were not assessed in a prospective way and sample size was small. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals with avoidant attachment and childhood trauma are likely to present a high suicide risk. Since avoidant attachment is associated with altered perceptions and eventual rejection of social support, we recommend to screen for attachment early and to engage patients in therapeutical approaches focusing on the client-therapist alliance.

[Can we assess the efficacy of psychotherapies in a clinical trial?] / Peut-on évaluer l'efficacité des psychothérapies à l'aide d'un essai clinique ?

Extensive evidence demonstrates that psychotherapy can be an efficacious and effective health care service for a wide range of mental health and health conditions. Recently, an important distinction between efficacy research and effectiveness research has been made within research focused on the outcome of psychotherapy. Data from both efficacy and effectiveness studies are fundamental to a complete understanding of the potential impact of a psychotherapy and the way to carry successful psychotherapeutics interventions to routine clinical practice. Efficacy studies, using randomized controlled trials, maximize the internal validity of a study by the use of design features, such as random assignment to a psychotherapeutic intervention and control conditions, training of therapists to a specified level of competence in providing the treatment, and ensuring that all participants have the condition that the treatment was designed to address. The randomized controlled trials allowed to objectify the efficacy of the psychotherapies in multiple pathological contexts, as we will see with the example of bipolar disorders. On the other hand, effectiveness studies strive to maximize external validity (while maintaining an adequate level of internal validity) by locating the study within clinical service sites that provide ongoing health services, using clinicians who are routinely providing psychological services and patients who have been referred to the clinical settings. These studies do not allow understanding changes and psychotherapeutic processes in real practice. A solution might be found in using pragmatic case studies in a systematic manner to constitute ecologically valid samples and measure change and psychotherapeutic processes during clinically significant periods of time.