Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34931147›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2022

The interaction between social factors and adversities on self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analysis of 49 227 UK adults.

Elise Paul, Daisy Fancourt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Elise PaulDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-3740
Daisy FancourtDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6952-334X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about which factors exacerbate and buffer the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related adversities on changes in thinking about and engaging in self-harm over time.

aimsTo examine how changes in four social factors contribute to changes in self-harm thoughts and behaviours over time and how these factors in turn interact with adversities and worries about adversities to increase risk for these outcomes.

methodData from 49 227 UK adults in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study were analysed across the first 59 weeks of the pandemic. Fixed-effects logistic regressions examined time-varying associations between social support quality, loneliness, number of days of face-to-face contact for >15 min and number of days phoning/video calling for ≥15 min with self-harm thoughts and behaviours. We then examined how these four factors in turn interacted with the total number of adversities and worries about adversity and how this affected outcomes.

resultsIncreases in the quality of social support were associated with decreases in the likelihood of both outcomes, whereas greater loneliness was associated with an increase in their likelihood. Associations were less clear for telephone/video contact and face-to-face contact with outcomes. Social support buffered and loneliness exacerbated the impact of adversity experiences on self-harm behaviours.

conclusionsThese findings suggest the importance of the quality of one's social support network, rather than the mere presence of contact, for reducing the likelihood of self-harm behaviours in the context of COVID-19 pandemic-related adversity and worry.

Indexed as

adversityCOVID-19longitudinal studiesSelf-harm behavioursself-harm thoughts

Identifiers

PMID34931147
PMCPMC8674193

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.