Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34015945›Full record

ArticleThe Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry2022

'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.

Leah Quinlivan, Louise Gorman, Donna L Littlewood, Elizabeth Monaghan, Stephen J Barlow, Stephen Campbell, Roger T Webb, Nav Kapur

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. New guidance for self-harm: an opportunity not to be missed.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leah QuinlivanDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3944-3613
Louise GormanDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Donna L LittlewoodDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth MonaghanNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Stephen J BarlowNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Stephen CampbellNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Roger T WebbDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nav KapurDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePsychosocial assessment following self-harm presentations to hospital is an important aspect of care. However, many people attending hospital following self-harm do not receive an assessment. We sought to explore reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm from the perspective of patients and carers.

methodsBetween March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients and 14 carers aged ⩾18 years from 16 mental health trusts and community organisations in the United Kingdom, via social media, to a co-designed qualitative survey. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data.

resultsPatients' reasons for refusing an assessment included long waiting times, previous problematic interactions with staff and feeling unsafe when in the emergency department. Two people refused an assessment because they wanted to harm themselves again. Participants reported organisational reasons for non-assessment, including clinicians not offering assessments and exclusion due to alcohol intoxication. Other patients felt they did not reach clinically determined thresholds because of misconceptions over perceived heightened fatality risk with certain self-harm methods (e.g. self-poisoning vs self-cutting).

conclusionOur results provide important insights into some of the reasons why some people may not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm. Parallel assessments, compassionate care and specialist alcohol services in acute hospitals may help reduce the number of people who leave before an assessment. Education may help address erroneous beliefs that self-injury and self-harm repetition are not associated with greatly raised suicide risk.

Indexed as

CaregiversSelf-Injurious BehaviorAgedEmergency Service, HospitalHumansMental HealthUnited Kingdomliaison psychiatrypsychosocial assessmentsqualitative researchSelf-harmsuicidal behaviour

Identifiers

PMID34015945
PMCPMC8941717
OpenAlexW3162941048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.