Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2018/Suicidality in the elderly

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion section[edit]

Ideas for chapter[edit]

If you have any ideas for my chapter feel free to put them below. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, you guys are awesome and really helpful!

Suicide, Neurophysiological and genetic theories[edit]

Hi Phillip,

I don't have any specific suggestions regarding the direction of your chapter, however I have referenced a few academic articles below which might offer some perspective. The first article, 'Understanding suicide among older adults: a review of psychological and sociological theories of suicide', explores a variety of psychological theories on suicide in the elderly; whilst the second article, 'Concept of Suicide: Neurophysiological/Genetic Theories and Possible Oxytocin Relevance', might provide some explanation on the neurophysiological factors influencing/ motivating suicide.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13607863.2015.1012045

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11062-016-9603-9

Hopefully these articles help. Thanks --U3154928 (discusscontribs) 02:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Suicide ideation as a predictor[edit]

Hi Phillip, I've been looking at the research surrounding suicidality in the elderly, and came up with a few ideas you could discuss. It appears that suicide ideation is one of the leading predictors of suicide in the elderly. In one study, the factors that influence suicide ideation include: financial problems, undergoing psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic therapy, low self efficacy, and low satisfaction with life. These factors are definitely areas you can discuss with regards to why there is a prevalence of these factors in the elderly, and with regards to implementing interventions to prevent/treat/help with these factors.

Here are two articles that implement strategies to increase self-efficacy: [1] [2]

Hope it goes well! --U3160382 (discusscontribs) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Loneliness and Depression[edit]

Hi Phillip, A possible idea might be to look at loneliness or depression as a motivating factor, see below for a literature review on the topic which includes these aspects as well as a few other causes or motivators.

[3]

Hopefully it gives you a little inspiration... --U3153445 (discusscontribs) 14:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing link in suicide research[edit]

Hi Phillip I found this article while doing the research on my book chapter that I think would be more relevant to your topic. The name of the article is "Theoretical Grounding: The "Missing Link" in Suicide Research". https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01939.x In this review, the author has pointed out that most theoretical works in suicidology are resulted from post hoc theorising. Therefore, this current focus of research could present certain strengths and weaknesses in the area of suicidality research. At the same time, the review also proposed an existential-constructivist framework in explaining the underlying motivations for pathways to suicide among individuals.

Hopefully this would help and good luck with your research. --Kelly.ng988 (discusscontribs) 2:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Use of theories[edit]

Hey Phil, just a thought to build on our earlier discussion of theories, I'm kinda considering there's two ways to approach it - one is to do separate sections on theories and then integrate research into them. This seems to be the most common option from the examples I've seen. The other option is what I think you were talking about doing, integrating theories throughout the page (maybe more like what is done in regular essays? Assuming that's how you write your essay). I figure the former option makes it super clear that you have good coverage of theories because it's set into a separate section, whereas the other is probably 'more advanced' as it's more integrated. Hope that's helpful. Cheers, Dot--Foley.d (discusscontribs) 04:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember how to do that waving thing James mentioned, so just to reply to your reply here (so you can see it)...don't know if you heard the discussion I was having with James yesterday, but he mentioned that you don't necessarily have to do a full psych theory - you can pull several bits from different theories as well. He did say it depends on how well that works for your topic so may not be relevant to you, but just to add another thought... Dot--Foley.d (discusscontribs) 09:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Cross-Culture Perspective[edit]

Hey Phillip, I think it's really great that you are looking at the cross-cultural perspective of suicidality in the elderly. Differences across collectivistic and individualistic cultures could relate to stigma, cultural stressors, support networks and the prioritisation of either the community or the individual. Furthermore, Eastern cultures often place emphasis on activities such as mindfulness which may act as a protective factor (for example, Meditation within the Sikh culture, Yoga within Hindu culture and Tai Chi within Chinese culture). There are a few articles that may be informative: 1) Awata and colleagues (2005) "Factors associated with suicidal ideation in an elderly urban Japanese population: A community‐based, cross‐sectional study" (doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2005.01378.x) which looks at Japanese culture in association with suicidality in the elderly and further identifies several predictors of suicidality in the general elderly community. 2) Colucci and Martin (2008) "Religion and Spirituality Along the Suicidal Path" which looks at the role of spirituality and focuses on three religions: Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism (doi: 10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229). 3) Choo and colleagues (2017) "Does ethnicity matter in risk and protective factors for suicide attempts and suicide lethality?" which looks at Chinese, Indian and Malay cultures in relation to suicidality. (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175752) Good luck with your chapter! --U3143109 (discusscontribs) 07:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Video[edit]

Hi Phillip, I hope everything is going well with your book chapter! I found a video on the Intergrated motivational - volational model, explained by Prof. Rory O'Connor himself (the pioneer of this model). Maybe it would be useful to include the video in your book chapter? or even just for a better understanding of the model? Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_4tp0Lh3I&t=447s One more thing that I'd like to note is that both IPTS and IMV model are considered an "ideation-action framework", in which suicidal behaviour develops progressively from ideation to potentially lethal attempts as distinct processes with distinct explanations and predictors. Hope this helps and good luck with your chapter! --Kelly.ng988 (discusscontribs) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of interactive quizzes or case studies[edit]

Hi Phil, I am looking forward to reading your final submission, this topic is very interesting. The above comments addressed what I was going to suggest in regards to the use of theories. Additionally, inserting a pop quiz or case study could help to engage the reader and make the chapter more interactive. --BB7897 (discusscontribs) 21:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits made[edit]

If you have made any significant edits to my page please describe them below

Heading casing[edit]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Topic development feedback

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via Canvas. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title, sub-title, TOC[edit]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit]

  1. Very good

Social contribution[edit]

  1. Promising, but links don't go to direct evidence
  2. See suggestions for how to record social contributions

Section headings[edit]

  1. Well developed
  2. Avoid having sections with only one subsection - either have no subsections or two or more subsections

Key points[edit]

  1. Well developed
  2. Overview and Conclusion are the most important sections but are currently underdeveloped - expand

Image[edit]

  1. OK
  2. Expand figure caption to explain how it relates to one or more key points in the text

References[edit]

  1. Good
  2. Use APA style
  3. The n.d. references should have years

Resources[edit]

  1. See also - Good; also include links to relevant Wikipedia articles
  2. External links - Select links which are relevant to an international audience

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Chapter review and feedback[edit]

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit]

  1. This chapter is over the maximum word count.
  2. Overall, this is a very good chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  3. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained.

Research[edit]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the chapter is well written.
    2. Some paragraphs are overly long (minor). Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned") (minor).
    4. The chapter benefited from a well developed Overview and Conclusion, with clear focus question(s) and take-home messages.
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    2. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
  3. Learning features
    1. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words would make the text more interactive.
    2. Good use of images. No Figure 5?
    3. No use of tables.
    4. Good use of feature boxes.
    5. Very good quiz.
    6. No use of case studies.
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and make correct use of commas.
    3. Use serial commas.
    4. Check and correct use of semi-colons (;) and colons (:).
  5. Proofreading
    1. Reduce excessive use of bold font.
  6. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    2. Direct quotes should be embedded within sentences and paragraphs, rather than dumped holus-bolus. Even better, communicate the concept in your own words.
    3. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10).
    4. Use APA style for Figure captions. See example.
    5. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. There should be no comma in this situation: "Lam et al., (2018)".
      2. In-text citations should be in alphabetical order.
    6. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and make correct use of capitalisation.
      2. See new doi format.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Canvas site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a reasonably good presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Reasonably well selected and structured content.
  2. The focus is primarily on theory, with some applied, take-home prevention strategies.
  3. Also consider explaining key research findings and/or providing examples/case studies.
  4. The presentation is well structured (Title, Overview, Body, Conclusion).
  5. Add and narrate a Title slide, to help the viewer understanding the focus and goal of the presentation.
  6. Add and narrate an Overview slide, to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  7. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit]

  1. The presentation is interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and animated image based slides with narrated audio.
  3. Well paced.
  4. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read in the time provided.
  5. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  6. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Use the full chapter title and sub-title on the opening slide and in the name of the video because this helps to match the book chapter and to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. Audio and video recording quality was excellent.
  3. Images sources are acknowledged.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  5. A link to and from the book chapter is provided.
  6. A written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)