Dataset Information

Pharmacological interventions for self-harm in adults.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and strongly associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review on psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for deliberate SH, first published in 1998 and previously updated in 1999. We have now divided the review into three separate reviews. This review is focused on pharmacological interventions in adults who self harm.

Objectives

To identify all randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH in adults, and to conduct meta-analyses (where possible) to compare the effects of specific treatments with comparison types of treatment (e.g., placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment) for SH patients.

Search methods

For this update the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CCDAN Specialised Register (September 2014). Additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were conducted to October 2013.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatments or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services.

Data collection and analysis

We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Meta-analysis was only possible for one intervention (i.e. newer generation antidepressants) on repetition of SH at last follow-up. For this analysis, we pooled data using a random-effects model. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.

Main results

We included seven trials with a total of 546 patients. The largest trial included 167 participants. We found no significant treatment effect on repetition of SH for newer generation antidepressants (n = 243; k = 3; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.36; GRADE: low quality of evidence), low-dose fluphenazine (n = 53; k = 1; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; GRADE: very low quality of evidence), mood stabilisers (n = 167; k = 1; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; GRADE: low quality of evidence), or natural products (n = 49; k = 1; OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; GRADE: low quality of evidence). A significant reduction in SH repetition was found in a single trial of the antipsychotic flupenthixol (n = 30; k = 1; OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50), although the quality of evidence for this trial, according to the GRADE criteria, was very low. No data on adverse effects, other than the planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were reported.

Authors' conclusions

Given the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, it is not possible to make firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions in SH patients. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required. In view of an indication of positive benefit for flupenthixol in an early small trial of low quality, these might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.

SUBMITTER: Hawton K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637297 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents and/or natural products in the treatment of SH is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of pharmacological interventions for SH in adults.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of treatment (e.g. placebo or alternative pharmacological treatment) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE. Ovid Embase and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020).Selection criteriaWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment acceptability, treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide.Data collection and analysisWe independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. The overall certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included data from seven trials with a total of 574 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (63.5%) with a mean age of 35.3 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.1 years). It is uncertain if newer generation antidepressants reduce repetition of SH compared to placebo (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.19; N = 129; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a lower rate of SH repetition for antipsychotics (21%) as compared to placebo (75%) (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50; N = 30; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference between antipsychotics compared to another comparator drug/dose for repetition of SH (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; N = 53; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference for mood stabilisers compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; N = 167; k = 1; very low-certainty evidence), or for natural products compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; N = 49; k = 1; lo- certainty) evidence.Authors' conclusionsGiven the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding pharmacological interventions in patients who engage in SH. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required, preferably using newer agents. These might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should also include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm is a growing issue with increasing prevalence rates; however, individuals who self-harm do not often receive treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are a possible solution to some of the barriers that individuals face when seeking support, and they have also been found to be effective in improving mental health. Thus far, reviews of mHealth interventions for self-harm have been limited by study type. Therefore, we determined that a broader scoping review will provide a more exhaustive understanding of mHealth interventions for self-harm.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify mHealth interventions for self-harm within the literature, understand the types and features of interventions that have been developed and evaluated, highlight research findings around mHealth interventions for self-harm, and determine what outcomes are typically used to assess the efficacy of interventions.MethodsA search was conducted using Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described an mHealth intervention designed to have a direct (ie, if the intervention was designed for self-harm or for people who self-harm) or indirect (ie, if self-harm was measured as an outcome) treatment effect and if the paper was available in English. There were no exclusion criteria based on the study design.ResultsA total of 36 papers were included in the review, and most of them were randomized controlled trials published within the last 4 years. The interventions were mostly smartphone apps and calling or texting services, with 62% (21/34) having underlying therapeutic models to inform the intervention content. They were generally shown to be promising and appealing, but only 5 were widely available for use. Outcomes focused on a reduction of self-harm and suicidality, mood, and the users' experiences of the intervention. Samples were typically nondiverse, and there was limited variety in the study designs and in the measurements of self-harm recovery.ConclusionsPromising and appealing mHealth interventions have been developed but are not widely available. Research could benefit from greater diversity as well as a broader and more nuanced understanding of recovery from self-harm.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm, an act of self-poisoning or self-injury irrespective of motivation, is a major public health concern. Use of alcohol prior to or alongside acts of self-harm is common but little is known about the alcohol-related mechanisms of self-harm enaction. We utilised an ideation-to-action approach to clarify the extent to which volitional alcohol factors differentiated those who have thoughts of self-harm but do not act on them (self-harm ideation) and those who engage in self-harm (self-harm enaction).MethodsCross-sectional analyses of the baseline phase of the Health Lifestyle and Wellbeing study: 1546 adults (1079 female; Mean age = 34 y; 92% White) resident in Scotland completed measures of demographics, lifetime self-harm, volitional alcohol factors and psychosocial factors. Multinomial logistic regression compared those with a history of self-harm thoughts ('ideation', n = 297), self-harm acts ('enaction', n = 346) and 'controls' (n = 897) to identify volitional alcohol factors associated with self-harm enaction.ResultsVolitional alcohol factors differentiated those with a history of self-harm enaction from those with a history of self-harm ideation (as well as those with no history) in initial models adjusted for demographics and depressive symptoms: the self-harm enaction group reported stronger alcohol-related negative urgency (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.41-2.16, p < .001), more frequent heavy drinking (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.24-1.72, p < .001) and stronger expectancies that drinking alcohol leads to negative self-perceptions (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.72, p = 0.03) and markers of self-harm risk (OR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.18-2.30, p = 0.004). Alcohol-related negative urgency and heavy-drinking frequency continued to differentiate those in the self-harm enaction group from those in ideation group in multivariate models. Consistent with theoretical models positing phase-specific moderators of self-harm ideation and enaction, psychosocial factors (perceived stress, support, negative mood regulation expectancies) differentiated those with a history of self-harm ideation from those without but not those in the ideation and enaction groups.ConclusionsManagement of self-harm risk requires better understanding of alcohol-related mechanisms of self-harm enaction. Volitional alcohol factors may play a role in governing the translation of self-harm thoughts into self-harm acts.

Project description:IntroductionViolence committed by people with mental illness has implications for mental health policy and clinical practice. Several strategies to reduce the risk of aggressive and violent behaviour have been proposed, and these include non-pharmacological interventions. There is, however, a need to identify which of these interventions are effective, and as a first step, we will conduct a scoping review to identify non-pharmacological interventions for self-directed or interpersonal violence in adults with severe mental illness across different conditions and settings.Methods and analysisThis is a scoping review protocol. The review will include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that assess the efficacy of interventions on self-directed or interpersonal violence with no restrictions on the control treatment in people with severe mental illness in any setting. No restrictions will be applied in terms of language or date of publication. To identify studies, a search will be performed in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Epistemonikos and databases of clinical trials. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be followed for reporting the findings, including the use of a PRISMA flow diagram. A standardised form will be used to extract data from studies. The findings will be classified using conceptual categories that will be specified in detail and a descriptive summary of the main results will be created. Moreover, it will be assessed whether the studies identified have been included in systematic reviews or meta-analyses and the results will be used to generate a conceptual map.Ethics and disseminationNo patients or other participants will be involved in this study. We will prepare a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and the results will be presented at mental health conferences.