Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026
Cognitive-affective network structure in adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury: implications for clinical intervention.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Shen, Wang Lijun, Sun Wenjie, Han Yuxin, Liu Nannan, Wang Xinxu, Li Jie, Zhang Xiangyang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) among adolescents represents a pressing global mental health challenge. Despite its high prevalence, the cognitive-affective mechanisms underlying NSSI remain poorly understood. Experiential avoidance (EA) and cognitive fusion (CF) represent key cognitive-affective processes implicated in NSSI vulnerability. This study examined the network architecture linking cognitive and affective components of EA and CF in adolescents with NSSI, to identify central and bridging elements that may inform clinical intervention strategies.
METHODS: A total of 4023 adolescents were recruited through a large-scale epidemiological survey. Network analysis was conducted within the subgroup of 1387 adolescents reporting NSSI in the past 12 months. NSSI behaviors were assessed using the Adolescent Non-Suicidal Self-Injury Assessment Questionnaire. EA and CF were measured using the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II and the Chinese version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire, respectively. Network analysis was conducted to map the cognitive-affective network structure and identify central nodes (most interconnected components) and bridge nodes (linking cognitive and affective clusters).
RESULTS: Within the NSSI subgroup, the cognitive-affective network revealed that thought distress [Expected Influence (EI) = 1.13] emerged as the most central node, showing strong connections to inner struggle (weight = 0.25), conflicting thoughts (weight = 0.22), and painful thoughts (weight = 0.22). Bridge analysis identified painful thoughts [Bridge Expected Influence (BEI) = 0.44], emotional interference (BEI = 0.43), rumination and procrastination (BEI = 0.40), and task disruption (BEI = 0.39) as key bridging nodes linking cognitive and affective processes. The EI stability coefficient was 0.75, indicating good reliability. Network structure was invariant across sex.
CONCLUSION: Thought distress occupies a central position in the cognitive-affective network of adolescent NSSI, while painful thoughts, emotional interference, rumination, and task disruption serve as key bridges between cognitive and affective domains, with bridging nodes spanning both EA and CF communities. These network-based findings highlight potential intervention targets that may help disrupt maladaptive cognitive-affective patterns in adolescents who engage in NSSI.
METHODS: A total of 4023 adolescents were recruited through a large-scale epidemiological survey. Network analysis was conducted within the subgroup of 1387 adolescents reporting NSSI in the past 12 months. NSSI behaviors were assessed using the Adolescent Non-Suicidal Self-Injury Assessment Questionnaire. EA and CF were measured using the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II and the Chinese version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire, respectively. Network analysis was conducted to map the cognitive-affective network structure and identify central nodes (most interconnected components) and bridge nodes (linking cognitive and affective clusters).
RESULTS: Within the NSSI subgroup, the cognitive-affective network revealed that thought distress [Expected Influence (EI) = 1.13] emerged as the most central node, showing strong connections to inner struggle (weight = 0.25), conflicting thoughts (weight = 0.22), and painful thoughts (weight = 0.22). Bridge analysis identified painful thoughts [Bridge Expected Influence (BEI) = 0.44], emotional interference (BEI = 0.43), rumination and procrastination (BEI = 0.40), and task disruption (BEI = 0.39) as key bridging nodes linking cognitive and affective processes. The EI stability coefficient was 0.75, indicating good reliability. Network structure was invariant across sex.
CONCLUSION: Thought distress occupies a central position in the cognitive-affective network of adolescent NSSI, while painful thoughts, emotional interference, rumination, and task disruption serve as key bridges between cognitive and affective domains, with bridging nodes spanning both EA and CF communities. These network-based findings highlight potential intervention targets that may help disrupt maladaptive cognitive-affective patterns in adolescents who engage in NSSI.