Search

Smoking behavior has been well-established to be more prevalent in individuals with psychosis and bipolar disorder compared to the general population. However, reports about higher suicide attempt prevalence of smoking compared to non-smoking patients suggest that smoking behavior may contribute to identifying at-risk groups of patients in a comparatively easy manner. In the present systematic quantitative review, we provide meta-analytical evidence on the smoking and suicide attempt link in 22 studies (k = 27 independent samples; N = 11,452) of patients with psychosis and bipolar disorder. We observed a small meaningful effect of smoking on suicide attempts (OR = 1.70; 95% CI [1.48; 1.95]), indicating that smokers have 1.70 the odds of having reported a suicide attempt compared to non-smokers. This effect generalized across diagnosis type (i.e., schizophrenia vs. bipolar spectrum disorder), sample type (i.e., invs. outpatients), and participant sex. However, the observed summary effect appeared somewhat inflated due to publication process-related mechanisms, showing some evidence for effect-inflating publication bias and a decline effect. In all, the presently observed smoking and suicide attempt link appears to be small but meaningful and robust, thus suggesting smoking status represents a useful variable for the identification of at-risk populations for suicide attempts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, more attention has been paid to jingle and jangle fallacies in psychological science. Jingle fallacies arise when two or more distinct psychological phenomena are erroneously labeled with the same term, while jangle fallacies occur when different terms are used to describe the same phenomenon. Jingle and jangle fallacies emerge due to the vague linkage between psychological theories and their practical implementation in empirical studies, compounded by variations in study designs, methodologies, and applying different statistical procedures' algorithms. Despite progress in organizing scientific findings via systematic reviews and meta-analyses, effective strategies to prevent these fallacies are still lacking. This paper explores the integration of several approaches with the potential to identify and mitigate jingle and jangle fallacies within psychological science. Essentially, organizing studies according to their specifications, which include theoretical background, methods, study designs, and results, alongside a combinatorial algorithm and flexible inclusion criteria, may indeed represent a feasible approach. A jinglefallacy detector arises when identical specifications lead to disparate outcomes, whereas jangle-fallacy indicators could operate on the premise that varying specifications consistently yield overrandomly similar results. We discuss the role of advanced computational technologies, such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), in identifying these fallacies. In conclusion, addressing jingle and jangle fallacies requires a comprehensive approach that considers all levels and phases of psychological science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]