Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones psicosociales para el daño autoinfligido en adultos

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012189Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 12 mayo 2016see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Trastornos mentales comunes

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Keith Hawton

    Correspondencia a: Centre for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

  • Katrina G Witt

    Orygen, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia

  • Tatiana L Taylor Salisbury

    Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK

    Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK

  • Ella Arensman

    National Suicide Research Foundation and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

  • David Gunnell

    Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Philip Hazell

    Speciality of Psychiatry, University of Sydney School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia

  • Ellen Townsend

    Self-Harm Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

  • Kees van Heeringen

    Unit for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Contributions of authors

KH had the idea for the review. All authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included trials. Both TTS and KW conducted the statistical analyses. KH, TTS, and KW wrote the initial version of the report and all authors contributed to the writing of drafts. All authors also approved the final version of the review for publication.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK

  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK

External sources

  • NHS Executive Anglia and Oxford Research and Development Program, UK

  • NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme, UK

Declarations of interest

KH and DG each authored three of the trials included in the review, EA authored two trials, and KvH is the author of one of the trials.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for providing us with unpublished data and other information: Anthony Bateman, Ryan Barnhart, Kirsten Barnicot, Annette Beautrais, Olive Bennewith, Greg Carter, Marie Cedereke, Tom Clarke, Mike Crawford, Kate Davidson, Elspeth Guthrie, Tony Fitzgerald, Alexandra Fleischmann, Peter Fonagy, Kim Gratz, Melanie Harned, Simon Hatcher, Nusrat Husain, Nav Kapur, Chiaki Kawanishi, Marsha Linehan, Rohana Marasinghe, Shelley McMain, Stefan Priebe, Nadja Slee, Carmen Stewart, Vojna Tapolaa, Barbara Tomenson, Peter Tyrer, Guillaume Vaiva, Lakshmi Vijayakumar, August Wang, Igor Weinberg, and Dong Xu.

We also wish to thank Andrea Cipriani, Jane Dennis, Jessica Sharp, and Catroina Shatford for advice on data extraction and management issues. We also wish to thank Thorsten Barnhofer, Zheng Chang, Carolyn Guillo, and Ka Liu for translating articles.

This project has previously had support from the National Co‐ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). KH is funded by Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. He is a National Institute for Health (NIHR) Senior Investigator, and personal funding from NIHR helped support this update. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 May 12

Psychosocial interventions for self‐harm in adults

Review

Keith Hawton, Katrina G Witt, Tatiana L Taylor Salisbury, Ella Arensman, David Gunnell, Philip Hazell, Ellen Townsend, Kees Heeringen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012189

Differences between protocol and review

In the original protocol for this review we planned to assess dichotomous outcome data (i.e., repetition of self‐harm and suicide) using the Peto odds ratio. Following revisions to iterations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2003) and new statistical advice, however, we have instead used the Mantel Haenzel method in this update. For this version of the review we have been able to add data for the previously stated outcomes of interest: depression, hopelessness, problem‐solving, and suicidal ideation. We have also used the I2 statistic, rather than the Chi2 test, to summarise between‐study heterogeneity in this version in light of revisions to Higgins 2003.

We also planned to assess methodological quality of included trials by the means recommended by the contemporary version of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2003). For this version of the review, we have therefore created 'Risk of bias' and 'Summary of findings' tables as per current recommendations. We have also refined the unit of analysis section, as per current recommendations, to include Zelen designed trials and trials that report adjusted effect sizes.

We have also added four sensitivity analyses, one for trials that employed Zelen's method of randomisation; one for trials that contributed substantial (> 75%) levels of heterogeneity; one for trials that specifically recruited individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder; and a fourth for trials that included a small minority (< 15%) of adolescent participants.

Notes

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.