ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2020
Healthcare professionals' implementation of national guidelines with patients who self-harm.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conducting mental health studies in Emergency Departments in England: Lessons learnt from a randomised controlled trial testing a brief psychological intervention for adults who self-harm.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Exploring How Intent of Self-Harm Affects Trainee Healthcare Practitioners' Views, Attitudes and Clinical Decision-Making in Northwest England: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Factors affecting implementation of a National Clinical Programme for self-harm in hospital emergency departments: a qualitative study.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Self-Harm Among Health Care Workers: Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Health and social care professionals' awareness and implementation of NICE guidelines on self-harm: a rapid review of the literature.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Training approaches for the dissemination of clinical guidelines for NSSI: a quasi-experimental trial.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2024Article
- Global prevalence of psychosocial assessment following hospital-treated self-harm: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJPsych open · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Examining drivers of self-harm guideline implementation by general practitioners: A qualitative analysis using the theoretical domains framework.British journal of health psychology · 2022Article
- Exploring the acceptability of a brief online theory-based intervention to prevent and reduce self-harm: a theoretically framed qualitative study.BJPsych open · 2022Article
- 'Wasn't offered one, too poorly to ask for one' - Reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm: Qualitative patient and carer survey.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for individuals who present to hospital following self-harm in England: A model-based retrospective analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2022Article
- Acceptability of a Brief Web-Based Theory-Based Intervention to Prevent and Reduce Self-harm: Mixed Methods Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational guidelines for the short-term management of self-harm are aimed at healthcare professionals who may be involved in the care of people who have self-harmed. However, evidence from small-scale studies globally suggest there is a lack of awareness of such guidelines among some groups of healthcare professionals. For the first time in a large representative sample of patient-facing healthcare professionals, we aimed to identify: (a) which healthcare professionals are aware of guidelines for the management of self-harm; (b) the perceived availability of training; (c) the use of risk screening tools; and (d) the extent to which healthcare professionals implement guidelines for the management of self-harm.
methods1020 UK healthcare professionals completed a cross-sectional survey online.
results85.6% (873/1020) of the sample had heard of the national guidelines, but only 24.3% (248/1020) knew "a fair amount" or more about them. Of the respondents who had previously encountered a patient who had self-harmed or was at risk of repeat self-harm, the guidelines were implemented in fewer than 50% (M = 43.89%, SD = 38.79) of encounters. 31% (312/1020) of the sample had received training in managing self-harm and, contrary to guidelines, 2.25% (23/1020) of the sample had used self-harm risk screening tools.
conclusionsOur findings highlight a need to improve knowledge of self-harm management guidelines, and identifies professional groups where awareness and knowledge is currently low. Further work is required to develop interventions to change healthcare professional practice with respect to the implementation of self-harm management guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.