Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hawton K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8786273 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.
Hawton Keith K Witt Katrina G KG Taylor Salisbury Tatiana L TL Arensman Ella E Gunnell David D Hazell Philip P Townsend Ellen E van Heeringen Kees K
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20160512 5
<h4>Background</h4>Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review first published in 1998, previously updated in 1999, and now split into three separate reviews. This review focuses on psychosocial interventions in adults who engage in self-harm.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effects of specific psychosocial treatments versus treatment as usual, enhanced usual care or other forms o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsFor 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 criteriaWe 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 analysisWe 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 resultsWe 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' conclusionsGiven 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.
| S-EPMC8637297 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8094615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSuicide is an important public health problem. Providing evidence-based psychosocial interventions to individuals presenting with self-harm is recognised as an important suicide prevention strategy. Therefore, it is crucial to understand which intervention is most effective in preventing self-harm repetition. We will evaluate the comparative efficacy of psychosocial interventions for the prevention of self-harm in adults.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing psychosocial interventions for the prevention of self-harm repetition. We will include RCTs in adults (mean age: 18 years or more) who presented with self-harm in the 6 months preceding enrolment in the trial. Interventions will be categorised according to their similarities and underpinning theoretical approaches (eg, cognitive behavioural therapy, case management). A health sciences librarian will update and adapt the search strategy from the most recent Cochrane pairwise systematic review on this topic. The searches will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central (Wiley), Cochrane Protocols (Wiley), LILACS and PSYNDEX from 1 July 2020 (Cochrane review last search date) to 1 September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome will be self-harm repetition. Secondary outcomes will include suicide mortality, suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Retention in treatment (ie, drop-outs rates) will be analysed as the main acceptability outcome. Two reviewers will independently assess the study eligibility and risk of bias (using RoB-2). An NMA will be performed to synthesise all direct and indirect comparisons. Ranked forest plots and Vitruvian plots will be used to represent graphically the results of the NMA. Credibility of network estimates will be evaluated using Confidence in NMA (CINeMA).Ethics and disseminationAs this is the protocol for an aggregate-data level NMA, ethical approval will not be required. Results will be disseminated at national/international conferences and in peer-review journals.Trial registration numberCRD42021273057.
| S-EPMC10450075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo synthesise the evidence on effectiveness, acceptability and the delivery mechanisms of psychosocial interventions for self-harm in low and middle income countries and to develop a pathway of change specific for self-harm interventions.MethodStudies reporting one or more patient or implementation outcomes of a psychosocial intervention targeting self-harm and conducted in low- and middle-income countries were included. Taxonomy of treatment components and a theory of change map was created using information from the studies.ResultsWe identified thirteen studies including nine randomised controlled trials (RCT), three non-RCTs, and a single experimental case design study. A single study using postcard contact and another using cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) reported a reduction in self-harm attempts. Suicidal ideations were significantly reduced with CBT, volitional help sheets and postcard contact in different studies. Suicide risk assessment, problem solving and self-validation were the most frequently used elements in interventions. Goal-setting was the technique used most commonly. Cultural adaptations of psychotherapies were used in two studies. High attrition rates in psychotherapy trials, limited benefit of the delivery of treatment by non-specialist providers, and variable benefit observed using phone contact as a means to deliver intervention were other important findings.ConclusionThere were no strong positive findings to draw definitive conclusions. Limited availability and evidence for culturally adapted interventions in self-harm, lack of evaluation of task sharing using evidence based interventions as well as a dearth in evaluation and reporting of various intervention delivery models in low- and middle-income countries were major literature gaps.
| S-EPMC7611648 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8122298 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094399 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8786270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to map existing literature describing how people with lived experience of self-harm have engaged in codesigning self-harm interventions, understand barriers and facilitators to this engagement, and how the meaningfulness of codesign has been evaluated.DesignScoping review by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A protocol was published online (http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P52UD).Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, ClinicalTrials.gov and relevant websites were searched on 24 December 2022 (repeated 4 November 2023).Eligibility criteriaWe included studies where individuals with lived experience of self-harm (first-hand or caregiver) have codesigned self-harm interventions.Data extraction and synthesisResults were screened at title and abstract level, then full-text level by two researchers independently. Prespecified data were extracted, charted and sorted into themes.ResultsWe included 22 codesigned interventions across mobile health, educational settings, prisons and emergency departments. Involvement varied from designing content to multistage involvement in planning, delivery and dissemination. Included papers described the contribution of 159 female, 39 male and 21 transgender or gender diverse codesigners. Few studies included contributors from a minoritised ethnic or LGBTQIA+ group. Six studies evaluated how meaningfully people with lived experience were engaged in codesign: by documenting the impact of contributions on intervention design or through postdesign reflections. Barriers included difficulties recruiting inclusively, making time for meaningful engagement in stretched services and safeguarding concerns for codesigners. Explicit processes for ensuring safety and well-being, flexible schedules, and adequate funding facilitated codesign.ConclusionsTo realise the potential of codesign to improve self-harm interventions, people with lived experience must be representative of those who use services. This requires processes that reassure potential contributors and referrers that codesigners will be safeguarded, remunerated, and their contributions used and valued.
| S-EPMC10753750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm is a major health issue resulting in high societal costs. Few psychological and psychosocial interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing repeat self-harm.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of psychological and psychosocial interventions that have shown evidence of effectiveness in adults and CYP (children and young people) who have self-harmed.MethodsUsing effectiveness data from Cochrane reviews, we developed two decision-analytical models to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-informed psychological therapy added to treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone for adults who have self-harmed, and of dialectical behavioural therapy for adolescents (DBT-A) versus enhanced TAU for CYP who have self-harmed, respectively, from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective in England. Other model input parameters were obtained from published sources, supplemented by expert opinion.FindingsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CBT-informed psychological therapy added to TAU versus TAU alone for adults who have self-harmed was £9088/QALY. The ICER of DBT-A versus enhanced TAU for CYP who have self-harmed was £268 601/QALY. Results were overall robust to the alternative scenarios tested.Conclusions and clinical implicationsCBT-informed psychological therapy appears to be cost-effective for adults who have self-harmed, which contributes to evidence for its implementation in services. Currently, DBT-A does not seem to be cost-effective for CYP who have self-harmed. The economic analyses were informed by clinical evidence of moderate-to-low (CBT) and low (DBT-A) quality. Further clinical and economic evidence for DBT-A and other psychological and psychosocial interventions for people who have self-harmed is required.
| S-EPMC11552534 | biostudies-literature