Self-harm in midlife: an analysis using data from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England

Background: Suicide rates in England are highest in men and women in midlife (defined here as people aged 40-59 years). Despite the link between self-harm and suicide there has been little focus on self-harm in this age-group.Method: Data from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England were used to examine rates over time and characteristics of men and women who self-harm in midlife. Data on self-harm presentations 2000-2013 were collected via specialist assessments or hospital records. Trends were assessed using negative binomial regression models. Comparative analysis used logistic regression models for binary outcomes. Repetition of self-harm and suicide mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models.Results: A quarter of self-harm presentations were made by people in midlife (n=24,599, 26%).Incidence rates increased over time in men, especially after 2008 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.07;95%CI 1.02-1.12; p [less than] 0.01) and were positively correlated with national suicide incidence rates (r=0.52, p=0.05). Rates in women remained relatively stable (IRR 1.00; 95%CI 1.00-1.02; p=0.39) and not correlated with suicide. Alcohol use, unemployment, housing and financial factors were more common in men, while indicators of poor mental health were more common in women. Twelvemonth repetition was 25% in men and women, and during follow-up 2.8% of men and 1.2% of women died by suicide.Conclusion: People in midlife who self-harm represent a key target for intervention. Addressing underlying mental health issues, alcohol use, and economic factors—potentially working with organisations offering advice on employment, housing and debt—may help prevent further self harm and suicide

Cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for individuals who present to hospital following self-harm in England: a model-based retrospective analysis

Background Guidance in England recommends psychosocial assessment when presenting to hospital following self-harm but adherence is variable. There is some evidence suggesting that psychosocial assessment is associated with lower risk of subsequent presentation to hospital for self-harm, but the potential cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for hospital-presenting self-harm is unknown. Methods A three-state four-cycle Markov model was used to assess cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment after self-harm compared with no assessment over 2 years. Data on risk of subsequent self-harm and hospital costs of treating self-harm were drawn from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England, while estimates of effectiveness of psychosocial assessment on risk of self-harm, quality of life, and other costs were drawn from literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained were estimated. Parameter uncertainty was addressed in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Cost per QALY gained from psychosocial assessment was £10,962 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £15,538–£9,219) from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective and £9,980 (95% UI £14,538–£6,938) from the societal perspective. Results were generally robust to changes in model assumptions. The probability of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY gained was 78%, rising to 91% with a £30,000 threshold. Conclusions Psychosocial assessment as implemented in the English NHS is likely to be cost-effective. This evidence could support adherence to NICE guidelines. However, further evidence is needed about the precise impacts of psychosocial assessment on self-harm repetition and costs to individuals and their families beyond immediate hospital stay

Compassionate wound care: An integrated intervention for people who self-injure

This article discusses how an integrated physical, psychological and social approach to wound care can help improve the quality of life for people who self-injure. The health professional should demonstrate compassion while teaching the person who self-injures how to provide their own wound care. Compassionate care may help the patient improve their self-compassion and reduce shame associated with this coping strategy, which may in turn avoid exacerbating self-harm when seeking healthcare

Incidence of suicide, hospital-presenting non-fatal self-harm, and community-occurring non-fatal self-harm in adolescents in England (the iceberg model of self-harm): a retrospective study

Summary Background Little is known about the relative incidence of fatal and non-fatal self-harm in young people. We estimated the incidence of suicide, hospital-presenting non-fatal self-harm, and community-occurring non-fatal self-harm in adolescents in England. Methods We used national mortality statistics (Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2013), hospital monitoring data for five hospitals derived from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England (Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2013), and data from a schools survey (2015) to estimate the incidence of fatal and non-fatal self-harm per 100 000 person-years in adolescents aged 12–17 years in England. We described these incidences in terms of an iceberg model of self-harm. Findings During 2011–13, 171 adolescents aged 12–17 years died by suicide in England (119 [70%] male and 133 [78%] aged 15–17 years) and 1320 adolescents presented to the study hospitals following non-fatal self-harm (1028 [78%] female and 977 [74%] aged 15–17 years). In 2015, 322 (6%) of 5506 adolescents surveyed reported self-harm in the past year in the community (250 [78%] female and 164 [51%] aged 15–17 years). In 12–14 year olds, for every boy who died by suicide, 109 attended hospital following self-harm and 3067 reported self-harm in the community, whereas for every girl who died by suicide, 1255 attended hospital for self-harm and 21 995 reported self-harm in the community. In 15–17 year olds, for every male suicide, 120 males presented to hospital with self-harm and 838 self-harmed in the community; whereas for every female suicide, 919 females presented to hospital for self-harm and 6406 self-harmed in the community. Hanging or asphyxiation was the most common method of suicide (125 [73%] of 171), self-poisoning was the main reason for presenting to hospital after self-harm (849 [71%] of 1195), and self-cutting was the main method of self-harm used in the community (286 [89%] of 322). Interpretation Ratios of fatal to non-fatal rates of self-harm differed between males and females and between adolescents aged 12–14 years and 15–17 years, with a particularly large number of females reporting self-harm in the community. Our findings emphasise the need for well resourced community and hospital-based mental health services for adolescents, with greater investment in school-based prevention. Funding UK Department of Health

What do young adolescents think about taking part in longitudinal self-harm research?: findings from a school-based study

Background: Research about self-harm in adolescence is important given the high incidence in youth, and strong links to suicide and other poor outcomes. Clarifying the impact of involvement in school based self-harm studies on young adolescents is an ethical priority given heightened risk at this developmental stage. Methods: Here, 594 school-based students aged mainly 13-14 years completed a survey on self-harm at baseline and again 12-weeks later. Change in mood following completion of each survey, ratings and thoughts about participation, and responses to a mood-mitigation activity were analysed using a multi-method approach. Results: Baseline participation had no overall impact on mood. However, boys and girls reacted differently to the survey depending on self-harm status. Having a history of self-harm had a negative impact on mood for girls, but a positive impact on mood for boys. In addition, participants rated the survey in mainly positive/neutral terms, and cited benefits including personal insight and altruism. At follow-up, there was a negative impact on mood following participation, but no significant effect of gender or self-harm status. Ratings at follow-up were mainly positive/neutral. Those who had self-harmed reported more positive and fewer negative ratings than at baseline: the opposite pattern of response was found for those who had not self-harmed. Mood mitigation activities were endorsed. Conclusions: Self-harm research with youth is feasible in school settings. Most young people are happy to take part and cite important benefits. However, the impact of participation in research appears to vary according to gender, self-harm risk and method/time of assessment. The impact of repeated assessment requires clarification. Simple mood-elevation techniques may usefully help to mitigate distress

The social life of self-harm in general practice

Research engaging qualitatively with clinical practitioners’ understanding of, and response to, self-harm has been limited. Self-harm offers a particularly compelling case through which to examine the enduring challenges faced by practitioners in treating patients whose presenting symptoms are not clearly biomedical in nature. In this paper, we present an analysis of 30 General Practitioners’ (GPs’) accounts of treating patients who had self-harmed. Our analysis demonstrates the complex ways in which GPs seek to make sense of self-harm. Illustrated through three common ‘types’ of patients (the ‘good girl’, the ‘problem patient’ and the ‘out of the blue’), we show how GPs grapple with ideas of ‘social’ and ‘psychological’ causes of self-harm. We argue that these tensions emerge in different ways according to the social identities of patients, with accounts shaped by local contexts, including access to specialist services, as well as by cultural understandings regarding the legitimacy of self-harming behaviour. We suggest that studying the social life of self-harm in general practice extends a sociological analysis of self-harm more widely, as well as contributing to sociological theorisation on the doctor–patient relationship

Risk factors for self-harm in people with epilepsy

Objective:To estimate the risk of self-harm in people with epilepsy and identify factors which influence this risk.Methods: We identified people with incident epilepsy in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), linked to hospitalization and mortality data, in England (01/01/1998-03/31/2014). In Phase 1, we estimated risk of self-harm among people with epilepsy, versus those without, in a matched cohort study using a stratified-Cox proportional hazards model. In Phase 2, we delineated a nested case-control study from the incident epilepsy cohort. People who had self-harmed (cases) were matched with up to 20 controls. From conditional logistic regression models, we estimated relative risk of self-harm associated with mental and physical illness comorbidity, contact with healthcare services and antiepileptic drug (AED) use.Results: Phase 1 included 11,690 people with epilepsy and 215,569 individuals without. We observed an adjusted hazard ratio of 5.31 (95% CI 4.08-6.89) for self-harm in the first year following epilepsy diagnosis and 3.31 (95% CI 2.85-3.84) in subsequent years. In Phase 2, there were 273 cases and 3,790 controls. Elevated self-harm risk was associated with mental illness (OR 4.08, 95% CI 3.06-5.42), multiple General Practitioner consultations, treatment with two AEDs versus monotherapy (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.33-2.55) and AED treatment augmentation (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.38-3.26). Conclusion: People with epilepsy have elevated self-harm risk, especially in the first year following diagnosis. Clinicians should adequately monitor these individuals and be especially vigilant to self-harm risk in people with epilepsy and comorbid mental illness, frequent healthcare service contact, those taking multiple AEDs and during treatment augmentation