35 research outputs found

    Epidemiology and trends in non-fatal self-harm in three centres in England, 2000–2012: findings from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England

    Get PDF
    Objectives: Self-harm is a major health problem in many countries, with potential adverse outcomes including suicide and other causes of premature death. It is important to monitor national trends in this behaviour. We examined trends in non-fatal self-harm and its management in England during the 13-year period, 2000–2012. Design and setting: This observational study was undertaken in the three centres of the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England. Information on all episodes of self-harm by individuals aged 15 years and over presenting to five general hospitals in three cities (Oxford, Manchester and Derby) was collected through face-to-face assessment or scrutiny of emergency department electronic databases. We used negative binomial regression models to assess trends in rates of self-harm and logistic regression models for binary outcomes (eg, assessed vs non-assessed patients). Participants: During 2000–2012, there were 84 378 self-harm episodes (58.6% by females), involving 47 048 persons. Results: Rates of self-harm declined in females (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98; 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99, p<0.0001). In males, rates of self-harm declined until 2008 (IRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98, p<0.0001) and then increased (IRR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, p=0.002). Rates of self-harm were strongly correlated with suicide rates in England in males (r=0.82, p=0.0006) and females (r=0.74, p=0.004). Over 75% of self-harm episodes were due to self-poisoning, mainly with analgesics (45.7%), antidepressants (24.7%) and benzodiazepines (13.8%). A substantial increase in self-injury occurred in the latter part of the study period. This was especially marked for self-cutting/stabbing and hanging/asphyxiation. Psychosocial assessment by specialist mental health staff occurred in 53.2% of episodes. Conclusions: Trends in rates of self-harm and suicide may be closely related; therefore, self-harm can be a useful mental health indicator. Despite national guidance, many patients still do not receive psychosocial assessment, especially those who self-injure

    Safety first Five-year report of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness

    No full text
    SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m02/38193 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

    Applying the Cry of Pain model as a predictor of deliberate self-harm in an early-stage adult male prison population

    Get PDF
    Purpose: Deliberate self-harming behaviour is more prevalent within the prison environment than in community samples, with those in the first weeks of imprisonment at greatest risk. Research in this area has been largely atheoretical and a unifying model may improve the predictability of assessment and the development of intervention approaches. This study applied William and Pollock’s (2001) Cry of Pain model as the theoretical process of deliberate self-harm in the early stages of imprisonment. Method: A prospective study of new arrivals at an adult male prison. Participants (n =181) completed questionnaires and it was hypothesised that the factors derived from the model (perceived stress, defeat, entrapment and absence of rescue factors) would be predictive of future deliberate self-harm. Prisoners with active psychosis and non-English speakers were excluded. All participants were followed up for four months for instances of self-harm. Eighteen participants engaged in self-harm during this period. Results: The Cry of Pain Model was supported in the analysis. Hierarchical binary logistic regression confirmed that all features of the model were supported as predictive of future self-harm in prison, even after controlling for previous self-harm, depression and hopelessness. Conclusion: The Cry of Pain model is supported as a predictive model for deliberate self-harm in prison. Suggestions are offered as to the impact on assessment and intervention directions in prison

    Risk of Suicide Is Insufficient Warrant for Coercive Treatment for Mental Illness

    Get PDF
    Mental health laws in many jurisdictions currently permit coercive treatment for persons with mental illness who are thought to be at risk of harm to themselves or others. These laws are often used to provide involuntary treatment to persons who are thought to be at risk of suicide. In this article we argue that legislated coercive psychiatric treatment should not be triggered by an assessment of the likelihood of harm, including a likelihood of suicide, but should be available only where a person is found to lack capacity to make their own decisions about their own health risks, after appropriate support has been given. We suggest that current opposition this approach may find its origin in factors including uncertainties about the idea of vulnerability and its relationship to capacity as well as tendency to minimise the real costs of psychiatric treatment and coercion against the aim of suicide prevention. Given the limits of suicide risk assessment, we argue that a public policy that allows involuntary preventative detention of competent persons thought to be at risk of suicide, places too great a burden on all persons living with mental illness to be justified. We suggest that we are better placed to serve the interests and respect the human rights of people with mental illness if we respect and support the right of persons to make decisions, rather than focussing on perceived vulnerabilities and calculations of suicide risk
    corecore