在住院精神卫生机构减少自我伤害和自杀风险的社会心理和病房干预措施的综合审查。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Leah Quinlivan, Jodie Westhead, Jane Graney, Fanyi Su, Sarah Steeg, Emma Nielsen, Eloise Curtis, Ellie Wildbore, Faraz Mughal, Rachel Elliott, Roger T Webb, Nav Kapur
{"title":"在住院精神卫生机构减少自我伤害和自杀风险的社会心理和病房干预措施的综合审查。","authors":"Leah Quinlivan, Jodie Westhead, Jane Graney, Fanyi Su, Sarah Steeg, Emma Nielsen, Eloise Curtis, Ellie Wildbore, Faraz Mughal, Rachel Elliott, Roger T Webb, Nav Kapur","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding what psychosocial interventions can reduce self-harm and suicide within in-patient mental health settings can be challenging, due to clinical demands and the large volume of published reviews.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To summarise evidence from systematic reviews on psychosocial and ward-level interventions (excluding environmental modifications) for self-harm and suicide that may enhance patient safety in in-patient mental health settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CDSR (2013-2023) for systematic reviews on self-harm and suicide prevention interventions that included in-patient data. Review quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, primary study overlap via an evidence matrix, and evidence strength evaluated (GRADE algorithm). Findings were narratively synthesised, with input from experts-by-experience throughout (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023442639).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen systematic reviews (seven meta-analyses, six narrative), comprising over 160 000 participants, were identified. Based on quantitative reviews, cognitive-behavioural therapy reduces repeat self-harm by follow-up, and dialectical behaviour therapy decreases the frequency of self-harm. Narrative review evidence suggested that post-discharge follow-up, as well as system and ward-based interventions (e.g. staff training) may reduce suicide and/or self-harm. However, review quality varied, patient involvement was lacking and methodological quality of trials informing reviews was predominately low. Overlap was slight (covered area 12.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effectiveness of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide in in-patient settings remains uncertain due to variable quality reviews, evidence gaps, poor methodological quality of primary studies and a lack of pragmatic trials and co-production. There is an urgent need for better, co-designed research within in-patient mental health settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 5","pages":"e196"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12451727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Umbrella review of psychosocial and ward-based interventions to reduce self-harm and suicide risks in in-patient mental health settings.\",\"authors\":\"Leah Quinlivan, Jodie Westhead, Jane Graney, Fanyi Su, Sarah Steeg, Emma Nielsen, Eloise Curtis, Ellie Wildbore, Faraz Mughal, Rachel Elliott, Roger T Webb, Nav Kapur\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjo.2025.10811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding what psychosocial interventions can reduce self-harm and suicide within in-patient mental health settings can be challenging, due to clinical demands and the large volume of published reviews.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To summarise evidence from systematic reviews on psychosocial and ward-level interventions (excluding environmental modifications) for self-harm and suicide that may enhance patient safety in in-patient mental health settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CDSR (2013-2023) for systematic reviews on self-harm and suicide prevention interventions that included in-patient data. Review quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, primary study overlap via an evidence matrix, and evidence strength evaluated (GRADE algorithm). Findings were narratively synthesised, with input from experts-by-experience throughout (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023442639).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen systematic reviews (seven meta-analyses, six narrative), comprising over 160 000 participants, were identified. Based on quantitative reviews, cognitive-behavioural therapy reduces repeat self-harm by follow-up, and dialectical behaviour therapy decreases the frequency of self-harm. Narrative review evidence suggested that post-discharge follow-up, as well as system and ward-based interventions (e.g. staff training) may reduce suicide and/or self-harm. However, review quality varied, patient involvement was lacking and methodological quality of trials informing reviews was predominately low. Overlap was slight (covered area 12.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effectiveness of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide in in-patient settings remains uncertain due to variable quality reviews, evidence gaps, poor methodological quality of primary studies and a lack of pragmatic trials and co-production. There is an urgent need for better, co-designed research within in-patient mental health settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"volume\":\"11 5\",\"pages\":\"e196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12451727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10811\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10811","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于临床需求和大量已发表的综述,了解哪些社会心理干预措施可以减少住院精神卫生机构中的自我伤害和自杀是具有挑战性的。目的:总结来自系统综述的关于自我伤害和自杀的社会心理和病房级干预(不包括环境改变)的证据,这些干预可能会提高住院精神卫生机构的患者安全。方法:我们系统地检索Medline、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO和CDSR(2013-2023),获取关于自我伤害和自杀预防干预措施的系统综述,包括住院患者数据。使用AMSTAR-2评估评价质量,通过证据矩阵评估主要研究重叠,并评估证据强度(GRADE算法)。研究结果以叙述性的方式进行了综合,并贯穿了专家的经验输入(PROSPERO ID: CRD42023442639)。结果:确定了13项系统综述(7项荟萃分析,6项叙述),包括超过16万名参与者。基于定量回顾,认知行为疗法通过随访减少了自我伤害的重复,辩证行为疗法减少了自我伤害的频率。叙述性审查证据表明,出院后随访以及系统和病房干预(如工作人员培训)可能减少自杀和/或自残。然而,综述的质量参差不齐,缺乏患者参与,综述的试验方法学质量主要较低。重叠轻微(覆盖面积12.4%)。结论:预防住院病人自残和自杀的干预措施的有效性仍然不确定,原因是质量评价不一、证据不足、初级研究的方法学质量差、缺乏实用的试验和联合生产。迫切需要在住院精神卫生环境中进行更好的、共同设计的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Umbrella review of psychosocial and ward-based interventions to reduce self-harm and suicide risks in in-patient mental health settings.

Background: Understanding what psychosocial interventions can reduce self-harm and suicide within in-patient mental health settings can be challenging, due to clinical demands and the large volume of published reviews.

Aims: To summarise evidence from systematic reviews on psychosocial and ward-level interventions (excluding environmental modifications) for self-harm and suicide that may enhance patient safety in in-patient mental health settings.

Method: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CDSR (2013-2023) for systematic reviews on self-harm and suicide prevention interventions that included in-patient data. Review quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, primary study overlap via an evidence matrix, and evidence strength evaluated (GRADE algorithm). Findings were narratively synthesised, with input from experts-by-experience throughout (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023442639).

Results: Thirteen systematic reviews (seven meta-analyses, six narrative), comprising over 160 000 participants, were identified. Based on quantitative reviews, cognitive-behavioural therapy reduces repeat self-harm by follow-up, and dialectical behaviour therapy decreases the frequency of self-harm. Narrative review evidence suggested that post-discharge follow-up, as well as system and ward-based interventions (e.g. staff training) may reduce suicide and/or self-harm. However, review quality varied, patient involvement was lacking and methodological quality of trials informing reviews was predominately low. Overlap was slight (covered area 12.4%).

Conclusions: The effectiveness of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide in in-patient settings remains uncertain due to variable quality reviews, evidence gaps, poor methodological quality of primary studies and a lack of pragmatic trials and co-production. There is an urgent need for better, co-designed research within in-patient mental health settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信