• Knowledge, attitudes and experiences of self-harm and suicide in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.

      McPhillips, Rebecca; orcid: 0000-0003-4296-5970; email: rebecca.mcphillips@manchester.ac.uk; Nafees, Sadia; orcid: 0000-0003-1553-3013; Elahi, Anam; Batool, Saqba; Krishna, Murali; Krayer, Anne; orcid: 0000-0003-1503-1734; Huxley, Peter; Chaudhry, Nasim; Robinson, Catherine (2021-06-22)
      <h4>Introduction</h4>Over 800 000 people die due to suicide each year and suicide presents a huge psychological, economic and social burden for individuals, communities and countries as a whole. Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected by suicide. The strongest risk factor for suicide is a previous suicide attempt, and other types of self-harm have been found to be robust predictors of suicidal behaviour. An approach that brings together multiple sectors, including education, labour, business, law, politics and the media is crucial to tackling suicide and self-harm. The WHO highlights that evaluations of the knowledge and attitudes that priority groups, not only healthcare staff, have of mental health and suicidal behaviour are key to suicide prevention strategies. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the knowledge, attitudes and experiences different stakeholders in LMICs have of self-harm and suicide.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BNI, Social Sciences and Cochrane Library will be searched. Reviewers working independently of each other will screen search results, select studies for inclusion, extract and check extracted data, and rate the quality of the studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology and Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklists. In anticipation of heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis of quantitative studies will be provided and metaethnography will be used to synthesise qualitative studies.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>Ethical approval is not required. A report will be provided for the funding body, and the systematic review will be submitted for publication in a high-impact, peer-reviewed, open access journal. Results will also be disseminated at conferences, seminars, congresses and symposia, and to relevant stakeholders.<h4>Prospero registration number</h4>CRD42019135323.
    • 'Relieved to be seen'-patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessment in the emergency department following self-harm: qualitative analysis of 102 free-text survey responses.

      Quinlivan, Leah M; orcid: 0000-0002-3944-3613; email: leah.quinlivan@manchester.ac.uk; Gorman, Louise; Littlewood, Donna L; Monaghan, Elizabeth; Barlow, Steven J; Campbell, Stephen M; Webb, Roger T; Kapur, Navneet (2021-05-23)
      <h4>Objectives</h4>We sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm.<h4>Design</h4>Thematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey.<h4>Setting</h4>Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media.<h4>Results</h4>Psychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a 'behavioural issue', inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.