Search

Past research identifies a number of risk factors for adolescent self-harm, but often fails to account for overlap between these factors. This study investigated the underlying, broader concepts by identifying different psychological profiles among adolescents. We then compared new self-harm rates over a six-month period across different psychological profiles. Australian high school students (n = 326, 68.1% female) completed a questionnaire including a broad range of psychological and socioenvironmental risk and protective factors. Non-hierarchical cluster analysis produced six groups with different psychological profiles at baseline and rate of new self-harm at follow-up. The lowest rate was 1.4% in a group that appeared psychologically healthy; the highest rate was 37.5% in a group that displayed numerous psychological difficulties. Four groups with average self-harm had varied psychological profiles including low impulsivity, anxiety, impulsivity, and poor use of positive coping strategies. Identifying multiple profiles with distinct psychological characteristics can improve detection, guide prevention, and tailor treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research to date suggests that as many as 12–15% of young people engage in self-harm behaviour; however, the current understanding of the psychological basis of adolescent self-harm is limited. The objective was to determine whether adolescents who self-harm are a psychologically homogenous group. It was hypothesised that psychological subtypes would exist and these groups would report different rates of self-harm. Method: Nine hundred and forty-four school students aged 11 to 19 and 166 first-year psychology students aged 21 or younger completed a self-report questionnaire. Participants were aged 11 to 21 (mean = 15.4, SD = 2.1). Sixty-two percent of the sample were female ( n = 692). Students were allocated to psychologically distinct groups. Rates of self-harm were compared for the psychological subtypes of self-harmers. Results: Two hundred and thirty-four participants reported lifetime self-harm (21.1%; 95% CI 19–23%) and 78 reported recent self-harm (7.0%; 95% CI 6.7–7.3%). The present study identified three psychologically quite distinct groups of adolescents within those who reported self-harm – a psychologically pathological group, a psychologically ‘normal’ group, and an impulsive group. The pathological group reported the highest rate of recent self-harm (50.9%); the psychologically ‘normal’ and impulsive groups reported similar rates of self-harm (28.7% and 24.6%, respectively). Conclusions: Adolescents who self-harm are not a psychologically homogenous group. One pathological subtype of self-harmers appears to most closely reflect a number of the psychological and social factors previously associated with self-harm. However, a large proportion of the sample was allocated the psychologically ‘normal’ subtype. This finding highlights the importance of psychological screening of adolescents presenting for treatment for self-harm as subtypes of self-harmers may require disparate strategies for intervention. Further research is required in order to identify appropriate treatment strategies for each subtype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]