RESUMEN
Background There have been growing concerns about the wellbeing of staff in inpatient mental health settings, with studies suggesting that they have higher burnout and greater work-related stress levels than staff in other healthcare sectors. When addressing staff wellbeing, psychological safety can be a useful concept. However, there is no measure of psychological safety that is suitable for use in inpatient mental health settings. Edmondson (1999) is the most commonly used measure of psychological safety, but it was designed for use in general physical healthcare settings. As inpatient mental health settings are unique environments, transferability of knowledge from physical to mental healthcare settings cannot be assumed. Methods We sought to develop questionnaire items that capture psychological safety amongst healthcare staff working in acute inpatient mental healthcare settings. We used the nominal group technique, a consensus method involving rounds of discussion, idea generation and item rating/ranking to identify priorities. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated, including 4 who had lived experience of mental health problems, 11 academics and 18 healthcare professionals (eight participants identified with more than one category). The study involved a workshop with three parts: 1) an overview of current research and limitations of the Edmondson (1999) measure as outlined above, 2) discussion on what items should be retained from the Edmondson (1999) measure, and 3) discussion on what items should be added to the Edmondson (1999) measure. Results Twenty-one items were generated and retained to capture psychological safety in inpatient mental health settings. These measure professionals' sense of being valued by their team and organisation, feeling supported at work, feeling physically safe and protected from physical harm, and knowing they can raise concerns about risk and safety. Conclusion This is the first study to generate questionnaire items suitable for measuring staff psychological safety in mental health settings. These have been generated via a consensus method to ensure stakeholder's views are reflected. Further research is needed to evaluate factor structure, internal reliability and convergent validity.
RESUMEN
Background: Few studies have investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health beyond 2020. This study quantifies changes to healthcare utilisation and symptoms for common mental health problems over the pandemic's first 21 months. Methods: Parallel cohort studies using primary care database and survey data for adults (≥16 years) in England from January 2015 to December 2021: 16,551,842 from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and 40,699 from the UK Household Longitudinal Survey (UKHLS). Interrupted time-series models estimated changes in monthly prevalence of presentations and prescribed medications for anxiety and depression (CPRD); and self-reported psychological distress (UKHLS). The pandemic period was divided into five phases: 1st Wave (April-May 2020); post-1st Wave (June-September 2020); 2nd Wave (October 2020-February 2021); post 2nd Wave (March-May 2021); 3rd Wave (June-December 2021). Findings: Primary care presentations for depression or anxiety dropped during the first wave (4.6 fewer monthly appointments per 1000 patients, 4.4-4.8) and remained lower than expected throughout follow-up. Self-reported psychological distress exceeded expected levels during the first (Prevalence Ratio = 1.378, 95% CI 1.289-1.459) and second waves (PR = 1.285, 1.189-1.377), returning towards expected levels during the third wave (PR = 1.038, 0.929-1.154). Increases in psychological distress and declines in presentations were greater for women. The decrease in primary care presentations for depression and anxiety exceeded that for physical health conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, urinary tract infections). Anxiety and depression prescriptions returned to pre-pandemic levels during the second wave due to increased repeat prescriptions. Interpretation: Despite periods of distress during the pandemic, we did not find an enduring effect on common mental health problems. The fall in primary care presentations for anxiety or depression suggests changing healthcare utilisation for mental distress and a potential treatment gap. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reducing suicide risk in middle-aged males (40-54 years) is a national priority. People have often presented to their GP within 3 months before suicide thus highlighting an opportunity for early intervention. AIM: To describe the sociodemographic characteristics and identify antecedents in middle-aged males who recently consulted a GP before dying by suicide. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a descriptive examination of suicide in a national consecutive sample of middle-aged males in 2017 in England, Scotland, and Wales. METHOD: General population mortality data were obtained from the Office for National Statistics and National Records of Scotland. Information was collected about antecedents considered relevant to suicide from data sources. Logistic regression examined associations with final recent GP consultation. Males with lived experience were consulted during the study. RESULTS: In 2017, a quarter (n = 1516) of all suicide deaths were in middle-aged males. Data were attained on 242 males: 43% had their last GP consultation within 3 months of suicide; and a third of these males were unemployed and nearly half were living alone. Males who saw a GP recently before suicide were more likely to have had recent self-harm and work-related problems than males who had not. Having a current major physical illness, recent self-harm, presenting with a mental health problem, and recent work-related issues were associated with having a last GP consultation close to suicide. CONCLUSION: Clinical factors were identified that GPs should be alert to when assessing middle-aged males. Personalised holistic management may have a role in preventing suicide in these individuals.
Asunto(s)
Conducta Autodestructiva , Suicidio , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Humanos , Suicidio/psicología , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Violencia , Derivación y ConsultaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aetiology of dual harm (co-occurring self-harm and violence towards others) is poorly understood because most studies have investigated self-harm and violence separately. We aimed to examine childhood risk factors for self-harm, violence, and dual harm, including the transition from engaging in single harm to dual harm. METHODS: Data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a UK-based birth cohort study, were used to estimate prevalence of self-reported engagement in self-harm, violence, and dual harm at ages 16 and 22 years. Risk ratios were calculated to indicate associations across various self-reported childhood risk factors and risks of single and dual harm, including the transition from single harm at age 16 years to dual harm at age 22. RESULTS: At age 16 years, 18.1% of the 4176 cohort members had harmed themselves, 21.1% had engaged in violence towards others and 3.7% reported dual harm. At age 22 the equivalent prevalence estimates increased to 24.2, 25.8 and 6.8%, respectively. Depression and other mental health difficulties, drug and alcohol use, witnessing self-harm and being a victim of, or witnessing, violence were associated with higher risks of transitioning from self-harm or violence at age 16 to dual harm by age 22. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of dual harm doubled from age 16 to 22 years, highlighting the importance of early identification and intervention during this high-risk period. Several childhood psychosocial risk factors associated specifically with dual harm at age 16 and with the transition to dual harm by age 22 have been identified.
Asunto(s)
Conducta Autodestructiva , Humanos , Niño , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Estudios Longitudinales , Estudios de Cohortes , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Conducta Autodestructiva/psicología , Violencia , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Objectives: Suicide prevention is a major public health challenge. Appropriate aftercare for self-harm is vital due to increased risks of suicide following self-harm. Many antecedents to self-harm involve social factors and there is strong rationale for social services-based self-harm aftercare. We aimed to review evidence for social service utilisation and referrals among people seeking help following self-harm. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Data sources: PubMed, PsycINFO, AMED, Social Policy and Practice, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Social Care Online, citation lists of included articles and grey literature. Eligibility criteria: Studies of people of any age in contact with health services following self-harm, with study outcomes including referrals to or utilisation of social workers and social services. Data extraction and synthesis: Information was extracted from each included study using a proforma and quality was critically assessed by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to review the evidence. Results: From a total of 3414 studies retrieved, 10 reports of 7 studies were included. Study quality was generally high to moderate. All studies were based in emergency departments (EDs) and most were UK based. In studies based solely on ED data, low proportions were referred to social services (in most studies, 1%-4%, though it was up to 44% when social workers were involved in ED assessments). In one study using linked data, 15% (62/427) were referred to social services and 21% (466/2,205) attended social services over the subsequent 3-year period. Conclusions: Overall, few patients were referred to social services after self-harm. Higher reported referral rates may reflect greater service availability, involvement of social workers in psychosocial assessments or better capture of referral activity. Social services-based and integrated approaches for self-harm aftercare are important future directions for suicide prevention. Improved links between social services and health services for people seeking support after self-harm are recommended.
RESUMEN
Dual harm is the co-occurrence of self-harm and aggression during an individual's lifetime. This behaviour is especially prevalent within criminal justice and forensic settings. The forms of aggression that should be included in the definition of dual harm have not yet been established. This study aimed to use network analysis to inform an evidence-based definition of dual harm by assessing the relationship between self-harm and different forms of aggressive behaviour in young people (N = 3,579). We used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Results revealed low correlations between the variables, leading to sparse network models with weak connections. We found that when separated into their distinct forms, aggressive acts and self-harm are only weakly correlated. Our work provides preliminary evidence to assist in understanding and managing dual harm within clinical and forensic settings and informs recommendations for future research.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the impact of the pandemic on healthcare presentations for self-harm has accumulated rapidly. However, existing reviews do not include studies published beyond 2020. AIMS: To systematically review evidence on presentations to health services following self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A comprehensive search of databases (WHO COVID-19 database; Medline; medRxiv; Scopus; PsyRxiv; SocArXiv; bioRxiv; COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, PubMed) was conducted. Studies published from 1 January 2020 to 7 September 2021 were included. Study quality was assessed with a critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included: 57% (29/51) were rated as 'low' quality, 31% (16/51) as 'moderate' and 12% (6/51) as 'high-moderate'. Most evidence (84%, 43/51) was from high-income countries. A total of 47% (24/51) of studies reported reductions in presentation frequency, including all six rated as high-moderate quality, which reported reductions of 17-56%. Settings treating higher lethality self-harm were overrepresented among studies reporting increased demand. Two of the three higher-quality studies including study observation months from 2021 reported reductions in self-harm presentations. Evidence from 2021 suggests increased numbers of presentations among adolescents, particularly girls. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained reductions in numbers of self-harm presentations were seen into the first half of 2021, although this evidence is based on a relatively small number of higher-quality studies. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries is lacking. Increased numbers of presentations among adolescents, particularly girls, into 2021 is concerning. Findings may reflect changes in thresholds for help-seeking, use of alternative sources of support and variable effects of the pandemic across groups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Conducta Autodestructiva , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Pandemias , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Conducta Autodestructiva/terapiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: A substantial reduction in self-harm recorded in primary care occurred during the first wave of COVID-19 but effects on primary care management of self-harm are unknown. Our objectives were to examine the impact of COVID-19 on clinical management within 3 months of an episode of self-harm. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 4238 patients with an index episode of self-harm recorded in UK primary care during the COVID-19 first-wave period (10 March 2020-10 June 2020) compared with 48 739 patients in a prepandemic comparison period (10 March-10 June, 2010-2019). OUTCOME MEASURES: Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we compared cohorts of patients with an index self-harm episode recorded during the prepandemic period versus the COVID-19 first-wave period. Patients were followed up for 3 months to capture subsequent general practitioner (GP)/practice nurse consultation, referral to mental health services and psychotropic medication prescribing. We examined differences by gender, age group and Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile. RESULTS: Likelihood of having at least one GP/practice nurse consultation was broadly similar (83.2% vs 80.3% in the COVID-19 cohort). The proportion of patients referred to mental health services in the COVID-19 cohort (4.2%) was around two-thirds of that in the prepandemic cohort (6.1%). Similar proportions were prescribed psychotropic medication within 3 months in the prepandemic (54.0%) and COVID-19 first-wave (54.9%) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges experienced by primary healthcare teams during the initial COVID-19 wave, prescribing and consultation patterns following self-harm were broadly similar to prepandemic levels. We found no evidence of widening of digital exclusion in terms of access to remote consultations. However, the reduced likelihood of referral to mental health services warrants attention. Accessible outpatient and community services for people who have self-harmed are required as the COVID-19 crisis recedes and the population faces new challenges to mental health.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Conducta Autodestructiva , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Atención Primaria de Salud , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Conducta Autodestructiva/psicología , Conducta Autodestructiva/terapia , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Individuals presenting to hospital with self-harm of high lethality or high suicidal intent are at high risk of subsequent suicide. AIM: To examine factors associated with psychiatric admission and self-harm repetition following high-risk self-harm (HRSH). METHOD: A cohort study of 324 consecutive HRSH patients was conducted across three urban hospitals (December 2014-February 2018). Information on self-harm repetition was extracted from the National Self-harm Registry Ireland. Logistic regression models examined predictors of psychiatric admission and self-harm repetition. Propensity score (PS) methods were used to address confounding. RESULTS: Forty percent of the cohort were admitted to a psychiatric inpatient setting. Factors associated with admission were living alone, depression, previous psychiatric admission, suicide note and uncommon self-harm methods. History of emotional, physical or sexual abuse was associated with not being admitted. Twelve-month self-harm repetition occurred in 17.3% of cases. Following inverse probability weighting according to the PS, psychiatric admission following HRSH was not associated with repetition. Predictors of repetition were recent self-harm history, young age (18-24 years) and previous psychiatric admission. CONCLUSION(S): Findings indicate that psychiatric admission following HRSH is not associated with repeated self-harm and reaffirms the consistent finding that history of self-harm and psychiatric treatment are strong predictors of repetition.
Asunto(s)
Conducta Autodestructiva , Suicidio , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudios de Cohortes , Ambiente en el Hogar , Hospitales , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of temporal trends in clinically treated self-harm is an important component of suicide prevention in the dynamic context of COVID-19. There is little evidence beyond the initial months following the onset of the pandemic, despite national and regional restrictions persisting to mid-2021. METHODS: Descriptive time series analysis utilizing de-identified, primary care health records of 2.8 million patients from the Greater Manchester Care Record. Frequencies of self-harm episodes between 1st January 2019 and 31st May 2021 were examined, including stratification by sex, age group, ethnicity, and index of multiple deprivation quintile. FINDINGS: There were 33,444 episodes of self-harm by 13,148 individuals recorded during the study period. Frequency ratios of incident and all episodes of self-harm were 0.59 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) and 0.69 (CI 0.63 to 0.75) respectively in April 2020 compared to February 2020. Between August 2020 and May 2021 frequency ratios were 0.92 (CI 0.88 to 0.96) for incident episodes and 0.86 (CI 0.84 to 0.88) for all episodes compared to the same months in 2019. Reductions were largest among men and people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods, while an increase in all-episode self-harm was observed for adolescents aged 10-17. INTERPRETATION: Reductions in primary care-recorded self-harm persisted to May 2021, though they were less marked than in April 2020 during the first national lockdown. The observed reductions could represent longer term reluctance to seek help from health services. Our findings have implications for the ability for services to offer recommended care for patients who have harmed themselves.
RESUMEN
Importance: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with fatigue and sleep problems long after the acute phase of COVID-19. In addition, there are concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection causing psychiatric illness; however, evidence of a direct effect is inconclusive. Objective: To assess risk of risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue, or sleep problems following SARS-CoV-2 infection and to analyze changes according to demographic subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assembled matched cohorts using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, a UK primary care registry of 11â¯923â¯499 individuals aged 16 years or older. Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from February 1 to December 9, 2020. Individuals with less than 2 years of historical data or less than 1 week follow-up were excluded. Individuals with positive results on a SARS-CoV-2 test without prior mental illness or with anxiety or depression, psychosis, fatigue, or sleep problems were matched with up to 4 controls based on sex, general practice, and year of birth. Controls were individuals who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Data were analyzed from January to July 2021. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined via polymerase chain reaction testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue, or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking, and body mass index. Results: Of 11â¯923â¯105 eligible individuals (6â¯011â¯020 [50.4%] women and 5â¯912â¯085 [49.6%] men; median [IQR] age, 44 [30-61] years), 232â¯780 individuals (2.0%) had positive result on a SARS-CoV-2 test. After applying selection criteria, 86â¯922 individuals were in the matched cohort without prior mental illness, 19â¯020 individuals had prior anxiety or depression, 1036 individuals had psychosis, 4152 individuals had fatigue, and 4539 individuals had sleep problems. After adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between positive SARS-CoV-2 test results and psychiatric morbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.66-2.02), fatigue (aHR, 5.98; 95% CI, 5.33-6.71), and sleep problems (aHR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.64-3.78). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.65-1.77) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.55-5.75). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals registered at an English primary care practice during the pandemic, there was consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of fatigue and sleep problems. However, the results from the negative control analysis suggest that unobserved confounding may be responsible for at least some of the positive association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/complicaciones , Fatiga/etiología , Pandemias , Distrés Psicológico , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Trastornos del Sueño-Vigilia/etiología , Sueño , Adulto , Ansiedad/tratamiento farmacológico , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Ansiedad/etiología , COVID-19/psicología , COVID-19/virología , Estudios de Cohortes , Depresión/tratamiento farmacológico , Depresión/epidemiología , Depresión/etiología , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Fatiga/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Atención Primaria de Salud , Trastornos Psicóticos/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Psicóticos/epidemiología , Trastornos Psicóticos/etiología , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Trastornos del Sueño-Vigilia/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected population mental health. We aimed to assess temporal trends in primary care-recorded common mental illness, episodes of self-harm, psychotropic medication prescribing, and general practitioner (GP) referrals to mental health services during the COVID-19 emergency in the UK. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study using primary care electronic health records from general practices registered on the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We included patient records from Jan 1, 2010, to Sept 10, 2020, to establish long-term trends and patterns of seasonality, but focused primarily on the period January, 2019-September, 2020. We extracted data on clinical codes entered into patient records to estimate the incidence of depression and anxiety disorders, self-harm, prescriptions for antidepressants and benzodiazepines, and GP referrals to mental health services, and assessed event rates of all psychotropic prescriptions and self-harm. We used mean-dispersion negative binomial regression models to predict expected monthly incidence and overall event rates, which were then compared with observed rates to assess the percentage reduction in incidence and event rates after March, 2020. We also stratified analyses by sex, age group, and practice-level Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. FINDINGS: We identified 14â210â507 patients from 1697 UK general practices registered in the CPRD databases. In April, 2020, compared with expected rates, the incidence of primary care-recorded depression had reduced by 43·0% (95% CI 38·3-47·4), anxiety disorders by 47·8% (44·3-51·2), and first antidepressant prescribing by 36·4% (33·9-38·8) in English general practices. Reductions in first diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders were largest for adults of working age (18-44 and 45-64 years) and for patients registered at practices in more deprived areas. The incidence of self-harm was 37·6% (34·8-40·3%) lower than expected in April, 2020, and the reduction was greatest for women and individuals aged younger than 45 years. By September, 2020, rates of incident depression, anxiety disorder, and self-harm were similar to expected levels. In Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, rates of incident depression and anxiety disorder remained around a third lower than expected to September, 2020. In April, 2020, the rate of referral to mental health services was less than a quarter of the expected rate for the time of year (75·3% reduction [74·0-76·4]). INTERPRETATION: Consequences of the considerable reductions in primary care-recorded mental illness and self-harm could include more patients subsequently presenting with greater severity of mental illness and increasing incidence of non-fatal self-harm and suicide. Addressing the effects of future lockdowns and longer-term impacts of economic instability on mental health should be prioritised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/psicología , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Conducta Autodestructiva/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Conducta Autodestructiva/etiología , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Servicios de Salud Mental/normas , Servicios de Salud Mental/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas Nacionales de Salud/normas , Programas Nacionales de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Derivación y Consulta/estadística & datos numéricos , Conducta Autodestructiva/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is becoming more commonplace in mental health research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Few studies have documented and evaluated PPI in self-harm and suicide research. Inconsistent reporting of PPI makes it difficult to discern practices that deliver quality, effective and meaningful involvement. It is important to understand and address emotional support needs of PPI members contributing to sensitive topics such as suicide and self-harm. Therefore, this study will examine the effect of PPI on self-harm and suicide research and explore patients', carers' and researchers' experiences and views in relation to the quality of PPI practice and provision of appropriate support for PPI members. METHODS: This protocol outlines the longitudinal, mixed methodological approach that will be taken. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via baseline and repeated questionnaires, document review and semi-structured interviews. Both PPI members and researchers will be invited to participate in this study. The two-year data collection period will enable evaluation of PPI throughout the entire research cycle. An integrated approach will be taken to data analysis, using inductive thematic analysis and descriptive and repeated measures analyses, to address specified study aims. DISSEMINATION: Findings from this study will inform practical guidance to support self-harm and suicide researchers in effectively involving people with experiential knowledge in their research. Analyses will offer insight into the effect of PPI throughout the research process and assess changes in PPI members' and researchers' experiences of involvement across a two-year period.
Asunto(s)
Conducta Autodestructiva , Suicidio , Cuidadores , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Salud MentalRESUMEN
The etiology of "dual harm" (the co-occurrence of self-harm and externalized violence in the same individual) is under-researched. Risk factors have mostly been investigated for each behavior separately. We aimed to examine adversities experienced between birth and age 15 years among adolescents and young adults with histories of self-harm and violent criminality, with a specific focus on dual harm. Three nested case-control studies were delineated using national interlinked Danish registers; 58,409 cases in total aged 15-35 were identified: 28,956 with a history of violent criminality (but not self-harm), 25,826 with a history of self-harm (but not violent criminality), and 3987 with dual-harm history. Each case was matched by date of birth and gender to 20 controls who had not engaged in either behavior. We estimated exposure prevalence for cases versus controls for each of the three behavior groups, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Experiencing five or more childhood adversities was more prevalent among individuals with dual-harm history (19.3%; 95% CI 18.0, 20.8%) versus self-harm (10.9%; 10.5, 11.3%) and violence (11.4%; 11.0%, 11.8%) histories. The highest IRRs for dual harm were linked with parental unemployment (5.15; 95% CI 4.71, 5.64), parental hospitalization following self-harm (4.91; 4.40, 5.48) or assault (5.90; 5.07, 6.86), and parental violent criminality (6.11; 5.57, 6.70). Growing up in environments that are characterized by poverty, violence, and substance misuse, and experiencing multiple adversities in childhood, appear to be especially strongly linked with elevated dual-harm risk. These novel findings indicate potential etiologic pathways to dual harm.
Asunto(s)
Experiencias Adversas de la Infancia , Conducta Autodestructiva , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Conducta Autodestructiva/epidemiología , Violencia , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Individuals attending emergency departments following self-harm have increased risks of future self-harm. Despite the common use of risk scales in self-harm assessment, there is growing evidence that combinations of risk factors do not accurately identify those at greatest risk of further self-harm and suicide. AIMS: To evaluate and compare predictive accuracy in prediction of repeat self-harm from clinician and patient ratings of risk, individual risk-scale items and a scale constructed with top-performing items. METHOD: We conducted secondary analysis of data from a five-hospital multicentre prospective cohort study of participants referred to psychiatric liaison services following self-harm. We tested predictive utility of items from five risk scales: Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS, Modified SAD PERSONS, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and clinician and patient risk estimates. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were used to evaluate predictive accuracy, with sensitivity analyses using classification-tree regression. RESULTS: A total of 483 self-harm episodes were included, and 145 (30%) were followed by a repeat presentation within 6 months. AUC of individual items ranged from 0.43-0.65. Combining best performing items resulted in an AUC of 0.56. Some individual items outperformed the scale they originated from; no items were superior to clinician or patient risk estimations. CONCLUSIONS: No individual or combination of items outperformed patients' or clinicians' ratings. This suggests there are limitations to combining risk factors to predict risk of self-harm repetition. Risk scales should have little role in the management of people who have self-harmed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Individual- and area-level risk factors for suicide are relatively well-understood but the role of macro social factors such as alienation, social fragmentation or 'anomie' is relatively underresearched. Voting choice in the 2016 referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union (EU) provides a potential measure of anomie. AIMS: To examine associations between percentage 'Leave' votes in the EU referendum and suicide rates in 2015-2017, the period just prior to, and following, the referendum. METHOD: National cross-sectional ecological study of 315 English local authority populations. Associations between voting choice in the EU referendum and age-standardised suicide rates, averaged for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, were examined. RESULTS: Overall there was a weak, but statistically significant, positive correlation between the local authority-level percentage 'Leave' vote in 2016 and the suicide rate 2015-2017: Pearson's correlation coefficient, r = 0.17; P = 0.003. This relationship was explained by populations having an older age distribution, being more deprived and lacking ethnic diversity. However, there was divergence (likelihood ratio test for interaction, χ2 = 7.2, P = 0.007) in the observed associations between London and the provincial regions with Greater London having a moderately strong negative association (r = -0.40; P = 0.02) and the rest of England a weak positive association (r = 0.17; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Deprivation, older age distribution and a lack of ethnic diversity seems to explain raised suicide risk in Brexit-voting communities. A greater sense of alienation among people feeling 'left behind'/'left out' may have had some influence too, although multilevel modelling of individual- versus area-level data are needed to examine these complex relationships. The incongruent ecological relationship observed for London likely reflect its distinct social, economic and health context.