ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Acceptance-Based and ACT-Informed Interventions for Non-Suicidal Self-Injury in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesNon-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) in adolescence is associated with emotion dysregulation, experiential avoidance, psychiatric morbidity, and later suicidal risk. Interventions based primarily on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) target psychological flexibility, acceptance, cognitive defusion, and values-based action, whereas emotion regulation individual therapy for adolescents (ERITA) and internet-delivered emotion regulation individual therapy for adolescents (IERITA) principally target emotion dysregulation while incorporating selected acceptance-related and ACT-consistent components, making these approaches theoretically relevant to adolescent NSSI.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO were searched on 10 April 2026. Eligible studies included adolescents or predominantly adolescent samples in which NSSI was the central clinical target or NSSI-specific outcomes were separately extractable and evaluated primarily ACT, ACT-informed, acceptance-based, ERITA, or IERITA interventions. Quantitative syntheses were restricted to controlled studies with extractable data. Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, and dedicated regional or gray literature sources were not searched; 15 reports remained unretrieved, so the evidence base may be incomplete.
resultsSix full-text primary adolescent NSSI intervention studies met inclusion criteria: two controlled primarily ACT studies, one randomized ERITA feasibility trial, two uncontrolled ERITA feasibility/open studies, and one randomized IERITA trial. The strongest single-study evidence came from therapist-guided IERITA, which reduced masked assessor-rated NSSI frequency more than treatment as usual, with an incidence rate ratio of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.57). Two-study exploratory random-effects syntheses yielded estimates in the direction of benefit for continuous NSSI outcomes, Hedges' g = -0.45 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.05; k = 2), and process outcomes, Hedges' g = 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.68; k = 2). These estimates are hypothesis-generating and imprecise as estimates of a generalizable treatment effect because each synthesis contained only two clinically and methodologically heterogeneous studies. Although I
conclusionsPrimarily ACT, ERITA, and IERITA interventions may be promising for adolescent NSSI, but the evidence remains preliminary and mostly of very low certainty. The pooled estimates are exploratory, hypothesis-generating, and imprecise and should not be interpreted as evidence of treatment efficacy. The strongest single-study evidence concerns therapist-guided IERITA and was rated as moderate in certainty, whereas the evidence for primarily ACT interventions and pooled process outcomes was very low in certainty and requires confirmation in larger preregistered randomized trials with standardized outcomes, longer follow-up, active comparators, and process measures.
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.