Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England.
Background Evidence to guide clinical management of self-harm is sparse, trials have recruited selected samples, and psychological treatments that are suggested in guidelines may not be available in routine practice. Aims To examine how the management that patients receive in hospital relates to sub...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
| _version_ | 1797066473233973248 |
|---|---|
| author | Kapur, N Steeg, S Webb, R Haigh, M Bergen, H Hawton, K Ness, J Waters, K Cooper, J |
| author_facet | Kapur, N Steeg, S Webb, R Haigh, M Bergen, H Hawton, K Ness, J Waters, K Cooper, J |
| author_sort | Kapur, N |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Background Evidence to guide clinical management of self-harm is sparse, trials have recruited selected samples, and psychological treatments that are suggested in guidelines may not be available in routine practice. Aims To examine how the management that patients receive in hospital relates to subsequent outcome. Methods We identified episodes of self-harm presenting to three UK centres (Derby, Manchester, Oxford) over a 10 year period (2000 to 2009). We used established data collection systems to investigate the relationship between four aspects of management (psychosocial assessment, medical admission, psychiatric admission, referral for specialist mental health follow up) and repetition of self-harm within 12 months, adjusted for differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results 35,938 individuals presented with self-harm during the study period. In two of the three centres, receiving a psychosocial assessment was associated with a 40% lower risk of repetition, Hazard Ratios (95% CIs): Centre A 0.99 (0.90–1.09); Centre B 0.59 (0.48–0.74); Centre C 0.59 (0.52–0.68). There was little indication that the apparent protective effects were mediated through referral and follow up arrangements. The association between psychosocial assessment and a reduced risk of repetition appeared to be least evident in those from the most deprived areas. Conclusion These findings add to the growing body of evidence that thorough assessment is central to the management of self-harm, but further work is needed to elucidate the possible mechanisms and explore the effects in different clinical subgroups. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:42:35Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:486fbf63-7797-48ca-af45-71cde303921b |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:42:35Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:486fbf63-7797-48ca-af45-71cde303921b2022-03-26T15:25:49ZDoes clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:486fbf63-7797-48ca-af45-71cde303921bEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordPublic Library of Science2013Kapur, NSteeg, SWebb, RHaigh, MBergen, HHawton, KNess, JWaters, KCooper, JBackground Evidence to guide clinical management of self-harm is sparse, trials have recruited selected samples, and psychological treatments that are suggested in guidelines may not be available in routine practice. Aims To examine how the management that patients receive in hospital relates to subsequent outcome. Methods We identified episodes of self-harm presenting to three UK centres (Derby, Manchester, Oxford) over a 10 year period (2000 to 2009). We used established data collection systems to investigate the relationship between four aspects of management (psychosocial assessment, medical admission, psychiatric admission, referral for specialist mental health follow up) and repetition of self-harm within 12 months, adjusted for differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results 35,938 individuals presented with self-harm during the study period. In two of the three centres, receiving a psychosocial assessment was associated with a 40% lower risk of repetition, Hazard Ratios (95% CIs): Centre A 0.99 (0.90–1.09); Centre B 0.59 (0.48–0.74); Centre C 0.59 (0.52–0.68). There was little indication that the apparent protective effects were mediated through referral and follow up arrangements. The association between psychosocial assessment and a reduced risk of repetition appeared to be least evident in those from the most deprived areas. Conclusion These findings add to the growing body of evidence that thorough assessment is central to the management of self-harm, but further work is needed to elucidate the possible mechanisms and explore the effects in different clinical subgroups. |
| spellingShingle | Kapur, N Steeg, S Webb, R Haigh, M Bergen, H Hawton, K Ness, J Waters, K Cooper, J Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title | Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title_full | Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title_fullStr | Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title_short | Does clinical management improve outcomes following self-harm? Results from the multicentre study of self-harm in England. |
| title_sort | does clinical management improve outcomes following self harm results from the multicentre study of self harm in england |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kapurn doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT steegs doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT webbr doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT haighm doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT bergenh doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT hawtonk doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT nessj doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT watersk doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland AT cooperj doesclinicalmanagementimproveoutcomesfollowingselfharmresultsfromthemulticentrestudyofselfharminengland |