© 2007 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Correspondence |
Author’s reply:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College London, UK. Email: m.crawford{at}imperial.ac.uk
Imperial College London, UK
Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK
Imperial College London, UK
EDITED BY KIRIAKOS XENITIDIS and COLIN CAMPBELL
Professor Rudd raises important questions about whether it was appropriate to undertake this meta-analysis given the nature of interventions studied and the length of follow-up periods used. We believe that it can be appropriate to synthesis data from randomised trials to examine clinically important rare outcomes that individual studies are unlikely to be able to detect. For instance, psychosocial interventions for alcohol misuse are effective in reducing alcohol consumption but a range of factors, including clinical inertia, mean that they are not widely delivered. By synthesising data from trials conducted in a range of different settings, Cuijpers et al (2004) demonstrated that they are associated with a 30% reduction in subsequent mortality, a finding which may help to overcome some of the barriers to their delivery.
Although none of the studies we examined set out specifically to try to reduce suicide, it seems logical that interventions that are designed to reduce the incidence of suicidal behaviour should have an impact on the likelihood of fatal as well as non-fatal self-harm. Although several studies we included involved only brief interventions, such interventions have been shown to reduce the rate of suicide in other contexts, for instance in the period following discharge from in-patient psychiatric care (Motto & Bostrom, 2001).
Most of the studies we included followed people for between 6 and 12 months after the initial episode of self-harm. Although this is a relatively short period it is also the period during which suicide is most likely to occur (Owens et al, 2002). By focusing on the period immediately following an episode of self-harm we maximised the likelihood of being able to demonstrate an impact on the rate of suicide.
However, we fully endorse Professor Rudd’s comment that the results of our meta-analysis need to be interpreted with caution. Lack of data on suicide deaths in several of the trials that we identified meant that study power was limited. This resulted in wide confidence intervals around the pooled difference in suicide rates and it is therefore possible that additional psychosocial interventions do lead to reductions in subsequent suicide.
REFERENCES
- Cuijpers, P., Riper, H. & Lemmers, L. (2004) The effects on mortality of brief interventions for problem drinking: a meta-analysis. Addiction, 99, 839 –845.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Motto, J. A. & Bostrom, A. G. (2001) A
randomized controlled trial of postcrisis suicide prevention.
Psychiatric Services,
52, 828
–833.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Owens, D., Horrocks, J. & House, A. (2002)
Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Systematic review.
British Journal of Psychiatry,
181, 193
–199.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||