ArticleBMJ open2025
Emergency care for young people after self-harm: a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn England, increasing numbers of young people seek help from emergency healthcare services, such as ambulances and emergency departments, after they self-harm. One contributing factor is a lack of meaningful and available community-based alternative sources of support for self-harm. It is not clear what helps young people in this context, how or why. This research aims to understand which resources are available in the emergency setting for young people (aged ≤25 years) who self-harm in England, and how and why they produce their intended and unintended effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review is a theory-driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis. It provides realist logic of inquiry to produce an explanatory analysis of how and why resources work, for whom and in what circumstances. This review has two key components; one will identify the resources available in England for young people who self-harm in the emergency setting, the other will identify initial programme theories from the international literature. The review will closely follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) clarifying scope, (2) evidence search, (3) article selection, (4) data extraction and organisation, and (5) evidence synthesis. Published and grey literature will be reviewed and included. Three key stakeholder groups will be involved throughout the review process, namely two patient and public involvement (PPI) groups (one for young people, one for parents and carers) and an interdisciplinary group of healthcare professionals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be reported according to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards publication and quality standards. Findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal, conference presentations, a study website, an animated video shared via social media and other avenues identified by our PPI groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025638539.
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.