↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
173 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
337 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
Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith Hawton, Katrina G Witt, Tatiana L Taylor Salisbury, Ella Arensman, David Gunnell, Philip Hazell, Ellen Townsend, Kees van Heeringen

Abstract

Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review first published in 1998, previously updated in 1999, and now split into three separate reviews. This review focuses on psychosocial interventions in adults who engage in self-harm. To assess the effects of specific psychosocial treatments versus treatment as usual, enhanced usual care or other forms of psychological therapy, in adults following SH. The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials coordinator searched the CCDAN Clinical Trials Register (to 29 April 2015). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from: the Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We included RCTs comparing psychosocial treatments with treatment as usual (TAU), enhanced usual care (EUC) or alternative treatments in adults with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services. We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. We included 55 trials, with a total of 17,699 participants. Eighteen trials investigated cognitive-behavioural-based psychotherapy (CBT-based psychotherapy; comprising cognitive-behavioural, problem-solving therapy or both). Nine investigated interventions for multiple repetition of SH/probable personality disorder, comprising emotion-regulation group-based psychotherapy, mentalisation, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). Four investigated case management, and 11 examined remote contact interventions (postcards, emergency cards, telephone contact). Most other interventions were evaluated in only single small trials of moderate to very low quality.There was a significant treatment effect for CBT-based psychotherapy compared to TAU at final follow-up in terms of fewer participants repeating SH (odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.88; number of studies k = 17; N = 2665; GRADE: low quality evidence), but with no reduction in frequency of SH (mean difference (MD) -0.21, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.26; k = 6; N = 594; GRADE: low quality).For interventions typically delivered to individuals with a history of multiple episodes of SH/probable personality disorder, group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy and mentalisation were associated with significantly reduced repetition when compared to TAU: group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88; k = 2; N = 83; GRADE: low quality), mentalisation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.73; k = 1; N = 134; GRADE: moderate quality). Compared with TAU, dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) showed a significant reduction in frequency of SH at final follow-up (MD -18.82, 95% CI -36.68 to -0.95; k = 3; N = 292; GRADE: low quality) but not in the proportion of individuals repeating SH (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.59, k = 3; N = 247; GRADE: low quality). Compared with an alternative form of psychological therapy, DBT-oriented therapy was also associated with a significant treatment effect for repetition of SH at final follow-up (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.49; k = 1; N = 24; GRADE: low quality). However, neither DBT vs 'treatment by expert' (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.95; k = 1; N = 97; GRADE: very low quality) nor prolonged exposure DBT vs standard exposure DBT (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.68; k = 1; N =18; GRADE: low quality) were associated with a significant reduction in repetition of SH.Case management was not associated with a significant reduction in repetition of SH at post intervention compared to either TAU or enhanced usual care (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; k = 4; N = 1608; GRADE: moderate quality). Continuity of care by the same therapist vs a different therapist was also not associated with a significant treatment effect for repetition (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.10; k = 1; N = 136; GRADE: very low quality). None of the following remote contact interventions were associated with fewer participants repeating SH compared with TAU: adherence enhancement (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.02; k = 1; N = 391; GRADE: low quality), mixed multimodal interventions (comprising psychological therapy and remote contact-based interventions) (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43; k = 1 study; N = 684; GRADE: low quality), including a culturally adapted form of this intervention (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55; k = 1; N = 167; GRADE: low quality), postcards (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; k = 4; N = 3277; GRADE: very low quality), emergency cards (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.14; k = 2; N = 1039; GRADE: low quality), general practitioner's letter (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; k = 1; N = 1932; GRADE: moderate quality), telephone contact (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; k = 3; N = 840; GRADE: very low quality), and mobile telephone-based psychological therapy (OR not estimable due to zero cell counts; GRADE: low quality).None of the following mixed interventions were associated with reduced repetition of SH compared to either alternative forms of psychological therapy: interpersonal problem-solving skills training, behaviour therapy, home-based problem-solving therapy, long-term psychotherapy; or to TAU: provision of information and support, treatment for alcohol misuse, intensive inpatient and community treatment, general hospital admission, or intensive outpatient treatment.We had only limited evidence on whether the intervention had different effects in men and women. Data on adverse effects, other than planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were not reported. CBT-based psychological therapy can result in fewer individuals repeating SH; however, the quality of this evidence, assessed using GRADE criteria, ranged between moderate and low. Dialectical behaviour therapy for people with multiple episodes of SH/probable personality disorder may lead to a reduction in frequency of SH, but this finding is based on low quality evidence. Case management and remote contact interventions did not appear to have any benefits in terms of reducing repetition of SH. Other therapeutic approaches were mostly evaluated in single trials of moderate to very low quality such that the evidence relating to these interventions is inconclusive.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 331 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 20%
Researcher 50 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 12%
Unspecified 39 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Other 98 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 114 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 84 25%
Unspecified 43 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 12%
Social Sciences 29 9%
Other 28 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 219. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#56,502
of 13,230,950 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 10,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,410
of 264,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,230,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 264,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.