Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32342827›Full record

ArticleEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2020

Predicting self-harm in prisoners: Risk factors and a prognostic model in a cohort of 542 prison entrants.

Howard Ryland, Charlotte Gould, Tristan McGeorge, Keith Hawton, Seena Fazel

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Improving risk assessment in forensic mental health: Temporal validation and clinical refinement of the FoVOx risk tool.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Using the stress-vulnerability model to better understand suicide in prison populations.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Howard RylandDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5287-555X
Charlotte GouldCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust.
Tristan McGeorgeNorth Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust.
Keith HawtonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4985-5715
Seena FazelDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5383-5365

Funding

Wellcome Trust 202836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-harm is common in prisoners. There is an association between self-harm in prisoners and subsequent suicide, both within prison and on release. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a prediction model to identify male prisoners at high risk of self-harm.

methodsWe developed an 11-item screening model, based on risk factors identified from the literature. This screen was administered to 542 prisoners within 7 days of arrival in two male prisons in England. Participants were followed up for 6 months to identify those who subsequently self-harmed in prison. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazard regression. Discrimination and calibration were determined for the model. The model was subsequently optimized using multivariable analysis, weighting variables, and dropping poorly performing items.

resultsSeventeen (3.1%) of the participants self-harmed during follow up (median 53 days). The strongest risk factors were previous self-harm in prison (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 9.3 [95% CI: 3.3-16.6]) and current suicidal ideation (aHR = 7.6 [2.1-27.4]). As a continuous score, a one-point increase in the suicide screen was significantly associated with self-harm (HR = 1.4, 1.1-1.7). At the prespecified cut off score of 5, the screening model was associated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.66 (0.53-0.79), with poor calibration. The optimized model saw two items dropped from the original screening tool, weighting of risk factors based on a multivariable model, and an AUC of 0.84 (0.76-0.92).

conclusionsFurther work is necessary to clarify the association between risk factors and self-harm in prison. Despite good face validity, current screening tools for self-harm need validation in new prison samples.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesEnglandFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrisonersPrisonsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSelf-Injurious BehaviorSuicidal IdeationYoung AdultPredictionprediction modelprisonrisk factorsscreeningself-harm

Identifiers

PMID32342827
PMCPMC7242092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.