Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34024759›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

'Relieved to be seen'-patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessment in the emergency department following self-harm: qualitative analysis of 102 free-text survey responses.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 M QuinlivanCentre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK leah.quinlivan@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3944-3613
Louise GormanCentre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Donna L LittlewoodNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth MonaghanNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Steven J BarlowNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Stephen M CampbellNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Roger T WebbCentre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Navneet KapurCentre for Mental Health and Safety, 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

objectivesWe sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm.

designThematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey.

settingBetween March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media.

resultsPsychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a 'behavioural issue', inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis.

conclusionOur findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.

Indexed as

COVID-19Self-Injurious BehaviorAdolescentAdultCaregiversEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleSARS-CoV-2psychiatryquality in healthcaresuicide & self-harm

Identifiers

PMID34024759
PMCPMC8149433
OpenAlexW3134660061

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.