↓ Skip to main content

Self-cutting versus intentional overdose: Psychological risk factors

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Hypotheses, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Self-cutting versus intentional overdose: Psychological risk factors
Published in
Medical Hypotheses, May 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Larkin, Z. Di Blasi, E. Arensman

Abstract

Individuals who present to emergency departments with self-harm are at elevated risk of further self-harm and suicide, and these risks are yet higher among patients who self-cut. Repetitive self-injury has previously been explained using a behaviourist approach focussing on operant conditioning, but we propose that the increased risk of self-harm repetition among those who present with self-cutting is at least partly mediated by pre-existing psychological risk factors. Several studies show that those who present with self-cutting differ from intentional overdose patients on demographic, psychiatric and social factors, but, based on findings from community-based studies, we hypothesise that there may be additional psychological differences that may also be associated with increased repetition risk. We conducted a small-scale cohort study of 29 self-harm patients presenting to A&E and compared theoretically-derived psychological variables between 8 self-cutting and 21 overdose patients. Those presenting with self-cutting scored significantly higher on hopelessness and lower on non-reactivity to inner experience and generally had a more vulnerable profile than those presenting with overdose. These findings support our hypothesis that the association between self-cutting and prospective repetition is at least partly due to pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities that increase both the likelihood of engaging in self-cutting as a method of self-harm and the likelihood of subsequent repetition of self-harm. Existing evidence suggests that self-cutting is a risk factor for repetition of self-harm, and it is possible that reducing and preventing repetition among these patients can be achieved by implementing psychological interventions to reduce hopelessness and increase tolerance of emotional distress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Medical Hypotheses
#3,284
of 4,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,240
of 208,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Hypotheses
#26
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.