Search

Background Self-harm is common in adolescents and a major public health concern. Evidence for effective interventions is lacking. An individual patient data meta-analysis has the potential to provide more reliable estimates of the effects of therapeutic interventions for self-harm than conventional meta-analyses, to explore which treatments are best suited to certain groups. Method A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of therapeutic interventions to reduce repeat self-harm in adolescents who had a history of self-harm and presented to clinical services. Primary outcome was repetition of self-harm. The methods employed for searches, study screening and selection, and risk of bias assessment are described, with an overview of the outputs of the searching, selection and quality assessment processes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance is followed. Results We identified a total 39 eligible studies, from 10 countries, where we sought Individual Patient Data (IPD), of which the full sample of participants were eligible in 18 studies and a partial sample of participants were eligible in 21 studies. We obtained IPD from 26 studies of 3448 eligible participants. For our primary outcome, repetition of self-harm, only 6 studies were rated as low risk of bias with 10 rated as high risk (although 2 of these were for secondary outcomes only). Conclusions Obtaining individual patient data for meta-analyses is possible but very time-consuming, despite clear guidance from funding bodies that researchers should share their data appropriately. More attention needs to be paid to seeking appropriate consent from study participants for (pseudo) anonymised data-sharing and institutions need to collaborate on agreeing template data-sharing agreements. Researchers and funders need to consider issues of research design more carefully. Our next step is to analyse all the data we have collected to see if it will tell us more about how we might prevent repetition of self-harm in young people. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/117/11. A plain language summary of this research article is available on the NIHR Journals Library Website https://doi.org/10.3310/GTNT6331. Plain language summary Self-harm is very common in young people and leads to an increased risk of death by suicide. Research so far has not provided clear evidence about which interventions can help to prevent self-harm repetition when young people present to services having harmed themselves. One way to understand what might help is to pool the results from lots of different clinical trials – this is known as a meta-analysis. This has already been done using the data published in research articles but has not led to clearer conclusions. In part this is because the information available in published articles is patchy and inconsistent which makes pooling the information and analysing it, difficult. A more useful approach is to ask researchers who led the clinical trials for their original ‘raw’ data and then pool and analyse all that data – this is known as an individual patient data meta-analysis. This has the added benefit that it is possible to include studies where only some of the participants are young people. We did this, and were able to identify many more study participants along with their data, compared to earlier meta-analyses. In this article, we describe how we searched for relevant research studies and the methods we used to obtain individual patient data from other researchers. We also describe our rating of the research quality of the studies we identified. We identified more studies, with many more participants in total, than in previous pooled study research. Gathering the data from other researchers was very time-consuming and not everyone was willing or able to share their data. When we rated the quality of the studies that we found, many were not of high quality. Our next step is to analyse all the data we have collected to see if it will tell us more about how we might prevent repetition of self-harm in young people.

Background: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. Setting: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. Participants: Young people aged 11–17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. Interventions: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). Main outcome measures: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. Results: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people’s and caregivers’ quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. Conclusions: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. Limitations: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. Future work: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Self-harm is common among prisoners, particularly female prisoners. In 2007, concerned about the rising incidence, the prison service introduced a care-planning system called Assessment, Care in Custody, and Teamwork (ACCT). To date, it does not incorporate a standardised diagnostic test to estimate the risk of future self-harm. Objective: To identify potential screening instruments, or items from those instruments, to predict the risk of self-harm among prisoners. Participants: Prisoners who had been assigned to an ACCT during the recruitment period. Design: A multistage prospective cohort study. Following a pilot study, instruments were administered to prisoners by interview at baseline, and followed up for 6 months (or until point of release if this was sooner) to ascertain self-harm status. Instruments were assessed for unidimensionality, scalability (Mokken) and quantitative structure (Rasch). Area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used to examine the ability of instruments and/or their items to predict future self-harm. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the multivariate predictive ability of the scales and various sociodemographic and sentencing factors. Setting: Three prisons (including one women’s prison) in northern England. Main outcome measures: A set of standardised questionnaires, including the Prison Screening Questionnaire (PriSnQuest), Revised Borderline Symptom List-23 (frequency-based responses) (BSL-23-F), Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), together with sociodemographic and sentencing data. Results: In total, 450 prisoners consented to participate in the study, of whom 26% were female. The mean age of participants was 31.2 years. Over half of male prisoners recruited were on remand, compared with just over one-fifth (22.6%) of female prisoners. The average tariff of those sentenced was 41 months, of which 14.7 months, on average, had been served. Just over one-third of ACCTs had been initiated because of a known self-harm event, and over one-quarter (27.8%) of participants self-harmed during the follow-up period. Thus, almost half (46.7%) of those entered into the study were reported to have self-harmed, either from their index ACCT, or subsequently, or both. Cutting was the most frequent behaviour (51%). All screening instruments showed some evidence of unidimensionality, and four out of five showed scaling criteria consistent with ordinal scaling, so verifying the validity of the cut points. However, many showed gender bias and failure to fit the Rasch measurement model. While a resolution was made in most cases, both ordinal raw scores and latent interval scale estimates failed to show predictive value when applied within AUC analysis (0.491–0.566) or adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. However, good predictive values were shown for gender-specific sets of items, thus providing easily applied screening indexes. Conclusions: While four out of five potential screening instruments were found to have acceptable psychometric properties within this setting, their predictive validity of all instruments was poor under AUC analysis. Gender-specific item sets were put together to form two screening indexes with formative indicators which gave reasonable AUC values, particularly so for females. The indexes provide identification of low–medium–high risk of self-harm, and so may help to inform potential care pathways and decisions to sign prisoners off from the ACCT. Future work should concentrate on refining a set of predictive screening items among different offender populations and investigating the time point at which this set of items should be administered. Future work may also look at the different magnitudes of risk as indicators for care pathways. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.