Literature DB >> 17761308

Psychosocial assessment following self-harm: results from the multi-centre monitoring of self-harm project.

Navneet Kapur1, Elizabeth Murphy, Jayne Cooper, Helen Bergen, Keith Hawton, Sue Simkin, Deborah Casey, Judith Horrocks, Rachael Lilley, Rachael Noble, David Owens.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial assessment is central to the management of self-harm, but not all individuals receive an assessment following presentation to hospital. Research exploring the factors associated with assessment and non-assessment is sparse. It is unclear how assessment relates to subsequent outcome.
METHODS: We identified episodes of self-harm presenting to six hospitals in the UK cities of Oxford, Leeds, and Manchester over an 18-month period (1st March 2000 to 31st August 2001). We used established monitoring systems to investigate: the proportion of episodes resulting in a specialist assessment in each hospital; the factors associated with assessment and non-assessment; the relationship between assessment and repetition of self-harm.
RESULTS: A total of 7344 individuals presented with 10,498 episodes of self-harm during the study period. Overall, 60% of episodes resulted in a specialist psychosocial assessment. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of assessment included age over 55 years, current psychiatric treatment, admission to a medical ward, and ingestion of antidepressants. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of assessment included unemployment, self-cutting, attending outside normal working hours, and self-discharge. We found no overall association between assessment and self-harm repetition, but there were differences between hospitals--assessments were protective in one hospital but associated with an increased risk of repetition in another. LIMITATIONS: Some data may have been more likely to be recorded if episodes resulted in a specialist assessment. This was a non-experimental study and so the findings relating specialist assessment to repetition should be interpreted cautiously.
CONCLUSION: Many people who harm themselves, including potentially vulnerable individuals, do not receive an adequate assessment while at hospital. Staff should be aware of the organizational and clinical factors associated with non-assessment. Identifying the active components of psychosocial assessment may help to inform future interventions for self-harm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17761308     DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Affect Disord        ISSN: 0165-0327            Impact factor:   4.839


  23 in total

1.  Epidemiology and nature of self-harm in children and adolescents: findings from the multicentre study of self-harm in England.

Authors:  Keith Hawton; Helen Bergen; Keith Waters; Jennifer Ness; Jayne Cooper; Sarah Steeg; Navneet Kapur
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2012-03-25       Impact factor: 4.785

2.  Age-sex differences in medicinal self-poisonings: a population-based study of deliberate intent and medical severity.

Authors:  Anne E Rhodes; Jennifer Bethell; Julie Spence; Paul S Links; David L Streiner; R Liisa Jaakkimainen
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 4.328

3.  Self-harm and life problems: findings from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England.

Authors:  Ellen Townsend; Jennifer Ness; Keith Waters; Navneet Kapur; Pauline Turnbull; Jayne Cooper; Helen Bergen; Keith Hawton
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-25       Impact factor: 4.328

4.  Method choice in nonfatal self-harm as a predictor of subsequent episodes of self-harm and suicide: implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Matthew Miller; Katherine Hempstead; Tuan Nguyen; Catherine Barber; Sarah Rosenberg-Wohl; Deborah Azrael
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Methodological issues associated with collecting sensitive information over the telephone--experience from an Australian non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) prevalence study.

Authors:  Anne W Taylor; Graham Martin; Eleonora Dal Grande; Sarah Swannell; Simon Fullerton; Philip Hazell; James E Harrison
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  10-y Risks of Death and Emergency Re-admission in Adolescents Hospitalised with Violent, Drug- or Alcohol-Related, or Self-Inflicted Injury: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Annie Herbert; Ruth Gilbert; Arturo González-Izquierdo; Alexandra Pitman; Leah Li
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Are hospital services for self-harm getting better? An observational study examining management, service provision and temporal trends in England.

Authors:  J Cooper; S Steeg; O Bennewith; M Lowe; D Gunnell; A House; K Hawton; N Kapur
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Scales for predicting risk following self-harm: an observational study in 32 hospitals in England.

Authors:  L Quinlivan; J Cooper; S Steeg; L Davies; K Hawton; D Gunnell; N Kapur
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England.

Authors:  Nav Kapur; Sarah Steeg; Roger Webb; Matthew Haigh; Helen Bergen; Keith Hawton; Jennifer Ness; Keith Waters; Jayne Cooper
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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.

Authors:  Galit Geulayov; Navneet Kapur; Pauline Turnbull; Caroline Clements; Keith Waters; Jennifer Ness; Ellen Townsend; Keith Hawton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.