BACKGROUND: A priority for health services is to reduce self-harm in young people. Predicting self-harm is challenging due to their rarity and complexity, however this does not preclude the utility of prediction models to improve decision-making regarding a service response in terms of more detailed assessments and/or intervention. The aim of this study was to predict self-harm within six-months after initial presentation. METHOD: The study included 1962 young people (12-30 years) presenting to youth mental health services in Australia. Six machine learning algorithms were trained and tested with ten repeats of ten-fold cross-validation. The net benefit of these models were evaluated using decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Out of 1962 young people, 320 (16%) engaged in self-harm in the six months after first assessment and 1642 (84%) did not. The top 25% of young people as ranked by mean predicted probability accounted for 51.6% - 56.2% of all who engaged in self-harm. By the top 50%, this increased to 82.1%-84.4%. Models demonstrated fair overall prediction (AUROCs; 0.744-0.755) and calibration which indicates that predicted probabilities were close to the true probabilities (brier scores; 0.185-0.196). The net benefit of these models were positive and superior to the 'treat everyone' strategy. The strongest predictors were (in ranked order); a history of self-harm, age, social and occupational functioning, sex, bipolar disorder, psychosis-like experiences, treatment with antipsychotics, and a history of suicide ideation. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for self-harm may have utility to identify a large sub population who would benefit from further assessment and targeted (low intensity) interventions. Such models could enhance health service approaches to identify and reduce self-harm, a considerable source of distress, morbidity, ongoing health care utilisation and mortality.
BACKGROUND: A priority for health services is to reduce self-harm in young people. Predicting self-harm is challenging due to their rarity and complexity, however this does not preclude the utility of prediction models to improve decision-making regarding a service response in terms of more detailed assessments and/or intervention. The aim of this study was to predict self-harm within six-months after initial presentation. METHOD: The study included 1962 young people (12-30 years) presenting to youth mental health services in Australia. Six machine learning algorithms were trained and tested with ten repeats of ten-fold cross-validation. The net benefit of these models were evaluated using decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Out of 1962 young people, 320 (16%) engaged in self-harm in the six months after first assessment and 1642 (84%) did not. The top 25% of young people as ranked by mean predicted probability accounted for 51.6% - 56.2% of all who engaged in self-harm. By the top 50%, this increased to 82.1%-84.4%. Models demonstrated fair overall prediction (AUROCs; 0.744-0.755) and calibration which indicates that predicted probabilities were close to the true probabilities (brier scores; 0.185-0.196). The net benefit of these models were positive and superior to the 'treat everyone' strategy. The strongest predictors were (in ranked order); a history of self-harm, age, social and occupational functioning, sex, bipolar disorder, psychosis-like experiences, treatment with antipsychotics, and a history of suicide ideation. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for self-harm may have utility to identify a large sub population who would benefit from further assessment and targeted (low intensity) interventions. Such models could enhance health service approaches to identify and reduce self-harm, a considerable source of distress, morbidity, ongoing health care utilisation and mortality.
Authors: Elizabeth M Scott; Daniel F Hermens; Nicholas Glozier; Sharon L Naismith; Adam J Guastella; Ian B Hickie Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Rachel Woodford; Matthew J Spittal; Allison Milner; Katie McGill; Navneet Kapur; Jane Pirkis; Alex Mitchell; Gregory Carter Journal: Suicide Life Threat Behav Date: 2017-10-03
Authors: Barnaby Nelson; Patrick D McGorry; Marieke Wichers; Johanna T W Wigman; Jessica A Hartmann Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Bradley E Belsher; Derek J Smolenski; Larry D Pruitt; Nigel E Bush; Erin H Beech; Don E Workman; Rebecca L Morgan; Daniel P Evatt; Jennifer Tucker; Nancy A Skopp Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Matthew K Nock; Jennifer Greif Green; Irving Hwang; Katie A McLaughlin; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Robert M Bossarte; Alex Luedtke; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jose R Zubizarreta Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: B P Chang; J C Franklin; J D Ribeiro; K R Fox; K H Bentley; E M Kleiman; M K Nock Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 6.222