Chan, Melissa, Bhatti, Henna, Meader, Nicholas orcid.org/0000-0001-9332-6605 et al. (5 more authors) (2016) Predicting suicide following self-harm:A systematic review of risk factors and risk scales. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. pp. 277-283. ISSN 1472-1465
Abstract
Background People with a history of self-harm are at a far greater risk of suicide than the general population. However, the relationship between self-harm and suicide is complex. Aims To undertake the first systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of risk factors and risk assessment scales to predict suicide following self-harm. Method We conducted a search for prospective cohort studies of populations who had self-harmed. For the review of risk scales we also included studies examining the risk of suicide in people under specialist mental healthcare, in order to broaden the scope of the review and increase the number of studies considered. Differences in predictive accuracy between populations were examined where applicable. Results Twelve studies on risk factors and 7 studies on risk scales were included. Four risk factors emerged from the meta-analysis, with robust effect sizes that showed little change when adjusted for important potential confounders. These included: previous episodes of self-harm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.68, 95% CI 1.38–2.05, K = 4), suicidal intent (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.91–3.81, K = 3), physical health problems (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.16–3.43, K = 3) and male gender (HR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.70–2.46, K = 5). The included studies evaluated only three risk scales (Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) and Scale for Suicide Ideation). Where meta-analyses were possible (BHS, SIS), the analysis was based on sparse data and a high heterogeneity was observed. The positive predictive values ranged from 1.3 to 16.7%. Conclusions The four risk factors that emerged, although of interest, are unlikely to be of much practical use because they are comparatively common in clinical populations. No scales have sufficient evidence to support their use. The use of these scales, or an over-reliance on the identification of risk factors in clinical practice, may provide false reassurance and is, therefore, potentially dangerous. Comprehensive psychosocial assessments of the risks and needs that are specific to the individual should be central to the management of people who have self-harmed.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details. Embargo : 12 months |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of York |
Academic Units: | The University of York > Faculty of Social Sciences (York) > Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (York) |
Depositing User: | Pure (York) |
Date Deposited: | 21 Jul 2016 16:02 |
Last Modified: | 10 Apr 2025 23:09 |
Published Version: | https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.170050 |
Status: | Published online |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.170050 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:102798 |
Download
Filename: BJP_2015_170050v3_Chan_accepted_version.pdf
Description: BJP-2015-170050v3-Chan - accepted version