ArticlePloS one2025
The management of patients who self-harm in adult inpatient mental health settings: A policy analysis of English NHS mental health trusts.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of self-harm is a critical focus for staff in inpatient mental health settings. This study aimed to better understand how staff are guided through policies to manage self-harm via the following objectives: 1) to assess the alignment of policies from English NHS Mental Health trusts with national guidelines, 2) identify which aspects of the national guidelines are most and least frequently reflected in these policies, and 3) determine whether trusts with dedicated self-harm policies better reflect national guidelines. We conducted a content analysis of self-harm-related policies across 50 English NHS mental health trusts against a framework of 20 standards created from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence self-harm guidelines. Our analysis revealed a significant difference (U = 36.50, p = .002) in the number of standards met by trusts with a specific self-harm policy (M = 11.44, SD = 3.00) compared to those without (M = 7.26, SD = 3.00), with the number of standards met ranging from zero to 15. Notably, trusts failed to meet the majority of standards (M = 11.69, SD = 3.30). The findings of this study highlight several new insights into NHS trust policy on self-harm: 1) trusts exhibit variability in how they organise information across their policies, 2) dedicated self-harm policies may support trusts to better meet guidance but risk complicating guidance for staff, 3) policy content varies across trusts, 4) the importance of patient voice is acknowledged but the facilitators of good participation are poorly supported in the same policies, 5) trusts rarely define self-harm and some trusts use definitions which do not reflect guidelines, and 6) harm-reduction remains underrepresented in policies, reflecting ongoing contention surrounding its implementation. Further research is needed to understand the role that policy and guidelines play in guiding staff practices when managing self-harm.
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.