REVIEW ARTICLE |
Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds
Correspondence: David Owens, Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, 15 Hyde Terrace, Leeds LS2 9LT, UK
Declaration of interest J.H.'s salary is paid by the mental health charity Leeds Mind from a research grant awarded by the UK National Lottery Charities Board.
|
|
|---|
Aims To estimate rates of fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm.
Method A systematic review of published follow-up data, from observational and experimental studies. Four electronic databases were searched and 90 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Results Eighty per cent of studies found were undertaken in Europe, over one-third in the UK. Median proportions for repetition 1 year later were: 16% non-fatal and 2% fatal; after more than 9 years, around 7% of patients had died by suicide. The UK studies found particularly low rates of subsequent suicide.
Conclusions After 1 year, non-fatal repetition rates are around 15%. The strong connection between self-harm and later suicide lies somewhere between 0.5% and 2% after 1 year and above 5% after 9 years. Suicide risk among self-harm patients is hundreds of times higher than in the general population.
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
From the primary studies and all their secondary references, we included in our review every research report that fulfilled four criteria. The studies we selected were written in English, were published after 1970, described patients recruited to a study after attending a general hospital as a result of an episode of non-fatal self-harm and reported the proportion that repeated self-harm fatally or not for any follow-up period of at least a year. Suicides in most primary studies included those that were definite (by verdict of a coroner or equivalent authority) or probable (open verdicts or equivalent judgement); definitions were too variable for us to discriminate further and we have included them all and used the above broad definition of suicide. Because our search strategy found only one small study from the Far East that met the above criteria, we excluded it; the final list consequently represents research from Europe, North America and Australasia.
We excluded studies where the sample was restricted to participants who were young or elderly or had a learning disability. We did not exclude primary studies whose subjects were selected according to some measure of severity, such as established multiple repetition of self-harm or attending for the first time. Instead, we combined all the data and then applied a quality scale (described below). The majority of the studies were observational in design. Where we used data from clinical trials we combined data from both treatment groups, because the Cochrane review of trials of self-harm management (Hawton et al, 2001) found no clear difference between outcomes for experimental interventions compared with treatment as usual. Where more than one published paper set out findings for the same sample, we extracted results from the most complete version.
Measuring the quality of the primary study findings
For each study reporting a 1-year rate of non-fatal repetition or suicide
we applied a ten-point quality scale based on features of the method and
analysis (Table 1).
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 1 Non-fatal repetition and suicide: quality scores for study estimates |
Study size
We weighted the quality score in favour of larger studies because they
estimate outcome with the greatest precision. Clinical trials tend to score
low in these ratings because of small sample size. We previously found
(NHS Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination, 1998) that, for the studies reporting repetition of
non-fatal self-harm within 1 year, the median proportion repeating was 16%. A
follow-up study of 200 subjects (n=200) would generate a 95%
confidence interval of 11-21% (or 16±5%) around a sample estimate of
16% (Gardner et al,
1989). A more precise estimate can be derived from n=600:
13-19% (or 16±3%).
Because suicide is a rare outcome event, large sample sizes are needed for precise estimates. In the same way, we used the median from our previous review (3% suicide at 1-4 years of follow-up) to determine reasonably precise and achievable estimates: n=500 would generate a 95% confidence interval of 1.5-4.5% (or 3±1.5%); n=950 provides a more precise estimate of approximately 2-4% (or 3±1%).
Study sample
All hospitals discharge home a substantial proportion of patients attending
as a consequence of self-harm (Owens,
1990), which is as many as two-thirds from some accident and
emergency departments (Kapur et
al, 1998). Comprehensive studies of hospital contact
therefore identify subjects at accident and emergency or equivalent walk-in or
emergency departments at general or psychiatric hospitals. The next best
procedure is to ensure that all cases admitted as in-patients are included.
Weaker designs use convenience samples such as lists of weekday routine
referrals to the self-harm assessment service; there will be exclusion biases
but it is not clear what they might be. The most obvious biases of all occur
when studies confine their sample to mild or to severe cases, perhaps to
first-time or to multiple-repeat patients. We awarded up to four points for
sampling (see Table 1); the
final score is a cumulative one according to the absence of noticeable bias.
Clinical trials usually had numerous exclusions and tended to score low.
Ascertainment of outcome
We found that the studies determined subsequent suicides by one or more of
three methods: by inspection of local coroners' (or equivalent) records,
looking for the names of the study subjects; by efforts to determine the
whereabouts of each patient, for example using hospitals, general
practitioners and their records; and by checking names and other personal
details against national registration of deaths. The first of these methods is
weak missing those who move home, even by only a short distance, and
those who change their names. We awarded a point each for use of the two
better methods.
Non-fatal repetition is more difficult to determine because of inadequate collection of data in most hospitals. We awarded half a point each for four steps taken to maximise identification of all the repeat episodes: use of a catchment area for the inclusion of subjects; interview follow-up of subjects; checks in general practice records; and checking of accident and emergency records.
Analysis of data
Many studies wrongly estimated the proportion repeating by recruiting
subjects over a long period and following them up to a single end-point,
failing to correct for the difference between subjects in the time-period
denominator. Where a study used a uniform follow-up period for
example, everyone followed up for exactly 1 year from the date of inclusion
we awarded a point. Studies that used survival analysis scored a
further point.
Combining the studies into a summary
The studies emerging from the literature search included single group
cohorts, cohort analytical studies and clinical trials. This body of research
is too heterogeneous for meta-analysis
(Egger et al, 1998).
Instead, we have placed the findings in rank order and we report their medians
together with their interquartile range (25th-75th centiles).
|
|
|---|
The main results of our analysis, grouped by duration of follow-up, are shown in Fig. 1. The median proportion repeating non-fatal self-harm is 16% at 1 year and 23% in studies lasting longer than 4 years. For subsequent suicide, the increment in the median after a longer follow-up is relatively much more from less than 2% at 1 year up to nearly four times greater in the studies lasting over 9 years.
![]() View larger version (22K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1 Repetition and suicide studies grouped according to duration of study.
Medians are indicated by horizontal bars. Vertical bars indicate the range and
the horizontal boundaries of the boxes represent the first and third
quartiles. IQR, interquartile range.
|
Subgroup analyses
For repetition at 1 year and suicide at 1 year we rank-ordered the studies
according to date of publication and compared the findings of the more recent
and older halves (Figs 2a and
3a). Medians were largely
unaffected by the split but there was a wider dispersion of values among the
studies in the past 10 years.
![]() View larger version (20K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 2 Repetition within 1 year: studies grouped and divided according to date of
publication, location and quality score. IQR, interquartile range.
|
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 3 Suicide within 1 year: studies grouped and divided according to date of
publication, location and quality score. IQR, interquartile range.
|
The high proportion of studies from the UK led us to examine the 1-year findings according to whether studies were UK-based or from elsewhere (Figs 2b and 3b). For repetition, UK studies showed the same median values as the rest of the literature but were more narrowly grouped around that median. For the 1-year suicide rate, both the UK and other studies showed tight bunching but UK studies had a median nearly five times lower than that of the rest of the literature (MannWhitney W=54.5, P<0.001).
The comparisons of 1-year findings based on the quality scores of the primary studies are shown in Figs 2c and 3c. For repetition and then for suicide we placed the studies in rank order according to quality score and then compared the better findings (those above the whole-group median score) with those below the median. For repetition, the values for the better-quality findings bunch tightly around 15% (a similar median to the one we found for all 37 studies); for the poorer-quality findings, the values are more dispersed around a higher median (21%). Examining suicide, we find a similar pattern: the higher-quality findings are tightly grouped around a median (1.8%) identical to that of the whole group of 26 studies, and the poorer-quality findings are far more widely dispersed around a slightly higher median.
Figure 4 shows a larger proportion of high-quality findings among the reports of non-fatal repetition than among the reports of subsequent suicide. We might have predicted this disparity because we were aware of few large studies that could estimate suicide with precision.
![]() View larger version (10K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 4 Frequency distributions of the 1-year quality scores for repetition and
suicide.
|
|
|
|---|
We were struck by the relative absence of studies from the USA, in line with the few American studies about intervention following self-harm (Hawton et al, 2001). Publication bias seems an unlikely explanation; our search terms used standard procedures, and three of the four bibliographical databases that we used are American and thereby likely to bias in favour of American studies. Clinical epidemiological study of self-harm is uncommon in the USA, despite the huge scale of self-harm there (Vastag, 2001).
Summary of quantitative findings
Summing up our findings, it seems that a reasonable estimate of non-fatal
repetition is 15-16% at 1 year with a slow rise to 20-25% over the following
few years. In this review we have not been able to determine the 1-year
repetition rate of an inception cohort (first-time self-harm cases). For
suicide following self-harm we cannot settle on a simple finding. The median
1-year suicide rate for the better half of all the studies reviewed was four
times higher than the median rate for all UK studies
(Fig. 3), which might point to
real differences in outcome according to location or to deficits in either the
UK or non-UK literature.
Why were suicide findings inconsistent?
Quality scores in the suicide studies were generally low, with a median
quality score for all 26 studies of only 2.5 out of 10 (interquartile range
2-5). Scores for the 9 UK studies were not noticeably different from those of
the 17 non-UK studies: UK study median quality score=2 (2-5.5) and non-UK
median=3 (1-5), a difference without statistical significance
(MannWhitney W=212, P=0.6).
We checked whether health service differences between the UK and elsewhere might have led the UK studies to concentrate on accident and emergency departments, thereby biasing their samples towards those less severe episodes that result in discharge from accident and emergency. In 2 out of 9 UK studies and 4 out of 17 studies from other countries, the researchers followed up all the patients who attended, not just the admitted patients. Similarly, we found the same median scores for sampling (out of a maximum of four) in UK and non-UK studies: zero for each group, with the same upper quartiles of 3.5. We therefore found no evidence of a group difference based on differential attention to patients attending hospital and leaving without in-patient admission.
Consequences of the inconsistent findings about suicide
Although our review might suggest that suicide following self-harm has a
substantially lower incidence in the UK than elsewhere, the cumulative
findings about suicide after self-harm are too flimsy to rely on. We need to
understand the links between non-fatal self-harm and suicide if we are to plan
clinical services and intervention research properly. The best current UK
estimate of hospital attendance due to self-harm is around 400 per 100 000
(Hawton et al, 1997);
0.5% incidence of suicide in the next year after self-harm (our median
estimate for UK studies) accounts for 2 per 100 000 population, which is
one-fifth of the England and Wales suicide rate of 10 per 100 000. If the same
calculation is applied to our 1.8% median estimate from the better-quality
studies, then around two-thirds of suicides (7 per 100 000) might be preceded
by non-fatal self-harm in the preceding year.
Whichever estimate is the closer to the truth, it is plain that national suicide prevention strategies ought to be based on up-to-date research into non-fatal self-harm. High-quality follow-up studies of self-harm will help to keep those strategies relevant to clinical needs. The studies that ought to be undertaken will be large, following up well over 1000 self-harm patients, and they will be based on all patients attending hospital, regardless of whether or not they were admitted from accident and emergency. Determining the outcome of those who are treated only in primary care will be feasible only when there is an increase in data-sharing in primary care. Repetition will be ascertained from accident and emergency or other hospital contact records, rather than from ward, special unit or discharge data. Suicides will be determined by the use of national records of the registration of deaths. The study data will be analysed using the statistical techniques of survival analysis.
Suicide is a rare event occurring in 1 in 10 000 people a year, and bringing about a reduction in the population's suicide rates is a difficult challenge. Recent non-fatal self-harm indicates a large increase in individual risk it is probably the major risk factor but the incidence among these people rises to around 1 %. Unfortunately, all our clinical methods for predicting suicide among our patients have a very poor positive predictive value at this low level of incidence (Geddes, 1999). Only a population strategy (Rose, 1992) is likely to achieve a reduction in the suicidal potential after self-harm through application of an intervention aimed at all self-harm patients. But current evidence tells us that the few clinical trials of intervention after self-harm are characterised by inadequate power, unrepresentative samples and unsuitable data analysis (Hawton et al, 1998). The second research need is therefore for the first-ever large, well-designed clinical trial of brief intervention after non-fatal self-harm.
|
|
|---|
LIMITATIONS
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
years post parasuicide.
Crisis, 20,
115-121.[CrossRef][Medline]Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. Hawton, L. Harriss, D. Casey, S. Simkin, K. Harrison, I. Bray, and N. Blatchley Self-harm in UK armed forces personnel: descriptive and case-control study of general hospital presentations The British Journal of Psychiatry, March 1, 2009; 194(3): 266 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. L. Taylor, K. Hawton, S. Fortune, and N. Kapur Attitudes towards clinical services among people who self-harm: systematic review The British Journal of Psychiatry, February 1, 2009; 194(2): 104 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Heyerdahl, M. A. Bjornaas, R. Dahl, K. E. Hovda, A. K. Nore, O. Ekeberg, and D. Jacobsen Repetition of acute poisoning in Oslo: 1-year prospective study The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2009; 194(1): 73 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Tidemalm, N. Langstrom, P. Lichtenstein, and B. Runeson Risk of suicide after suicide attempt according to coexisting psychiatric disorder: Swedish cohort study with long term follow-up BMJ, November 18, 2008; 337(nov18_3): a2205 - a2205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Reulbach and S. Bleich Suicide risk after a suicide attempt BMJ, November 18, 2008; 337(nov18_3): a2512 - a2512. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
A. Oldershaw, C. Richards, M. Simic, and U. Schmidt Parents' perspectives on adolescent self-harm: qualitative study The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2008; 193(2): 140 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Lilley, D. Owens, J. Horrocks, A. House, R. Noble, H. Bergen, K. Hawton, D. Casey, S. Simkin, E. Murphy, et al. Hospital care and repetition following self-harm: multicentre comparison of self-poisoning and self-injury The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2008; 192(6): 440 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Haukka, K. Suominen, T. Partonen, and J. Lonnqvist Determinants and Outcomes of Serious Attempted Suicide: A Nationwide Study in Finland, 1996-2003 Am. J. Epidemiol., May 15, 2008; 167(10): 1155 - 1163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. L. Carter, K. Clover, I. M. Whyte, A. H. Dawson, and C. D'Este Postcards from the EDge: 24-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial for hospital-treated self-poisoning The British Journal of Psychiatry, December 1, 2007; 191(6): 548 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. Crawford, O. Thomas, N. Khan, and E. Kulinskaya Author's reply: The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2007; 191(4): 360 - 360. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M J Crawford and P Kumar Intervention following deliberate self-harm: enough evidence to act? Evid. Based Ment. Health, May 1, 2007; 10(2): 37 - 39. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Y Liu, A. Beautrais, E. Caine, K. Chan, A. Chao, Y. Conwell, C. Law, D. Lee, P. Li, and P. Yip Charcoal burning suicides in Hong Kong and urban Taiwan: an illustration of the impact of a novel suicide method on overall regional rates J Epidemiol Community Health, March 1, 2007; 61(3): 248 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. CRAWFORD, O. THOMAS, N. KHAN, and E. KULINSKAYA Psychosocial interventions following self-harm: Systematic review of their efficacy in preventing suicide The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2007; 190(1): 11 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Bhogal, D. Baldwin, L. Hartland, and R. Nair Brief Communication: Differences Between Ethnic Groups in Demographic and Clinical Features of Patients Admitted and Assessed After Deliberate Self-Harm: A Retrospective Case-Note Study International Journal of Social Psychiatry, November 1, 2006; 52(6): 483 - 486. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. JOHNSTON, J. COOPER, R. WEBB, and N. KAPUR Individual- and area-level predictors of self-harm repetition The British Journal of Psychiatry, November 1, 2006; 189(5): 416 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. OWENS, C. WOOD, D. C. GREENWOOD, T. HUGHES, and M. DENNIS Mortality and suicide after non-fatal self-poisoning: 16-year outcome study The British Journal of Psychiatry, November 1, 2005; 187(5): 470 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Carter, D. M. Reith, I. M. Whyte, and M. McPherson Repeated self-poisoning: increasing severity of self-harm as a predictor of subsequent suicide The British Journal of Psychiatry, March 1, 2005; 186(3): 253 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Kapur, J. Cooper, C. Rodway, J. Kelly, E. Guthrie, and K. Mackway-Jones Predicting the risk of repetition after self harm: cohort study BMJ, February 19, 2005; 330(7488): 394 - 395. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Cooper, N. Kapur, R. Webb, M. Lawlor, E. Guthrie, K. Mackway-Jones, and L. Appleby Suicide After Deliberate Self-Harm: A 4-Year Cohort Study Am J Psychiatry, February 1, 2005; 162(2): 297 - 303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Harriss, K. Hawton, and D. Zahl Value of measuring suicidal intent in the assessment of people attending hospital following self-poisoning or self-injury The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2005; 186(1): 60 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Zahl and K. Hawton Repetition of deliberate self-harm and subsequent suicide risk: long-term follow-up study of 11 583 patients The British Journal of Psychiatry, July 1, 2004; 185(1): 70 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Suominen, E. Isometsa, J. Suokas, J. Haukka, K. Achte, and J. Lonnqvist Completed Suicide After a Suicide Attempt: A 37-Year Follow-Up Study Am J Psychiatry, March 1, 2004; 161(3): 562 - 563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Gunnell and M. Eddleston Suicide by intentional ingestion of pesticides: a continuing tragedy in developing countries Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2003; 32(6): 902 - 909. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. GAIRIN, A. HOUSE, and D. OWENS Attendance at the accident and emergency department in the year before suicide: retrospective study The British Journal of Psychiatry, July 1, 2003; 183(1): 28 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. HORROCKS, S. PRICE, A. HOUSE, and D. OWENS Self-injury attendances in the accident and emergency department: Clinical database study The British Journal of Psychiatry, July 1, 2003; 183(1): 34 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. HAWTON, D. ZAHL, and R. WEATHERALL Suicide following deliberate self-harm: long-term follow-up of patients who presented to a general hospital The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2003; 182(6): 537 - 542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||