Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 12;6(2):e22.
doi: 10.1192/bjo.2019.93.

Measuring outcomes in trials of interventions for people who self-harm: qualitative study of service users' views

Christabel Owens  1 , Fiona Fox  2 , Sabi Redwood  3 , Rosemary Davies  4 , Lisa Foote  5 , Naomi Salisbury  6 , Salena Williams  7 , Lucy Biddle  8 , Kyla Thomas  9
Affiliations

Measuring outcomes in trials of interventions for people who self-harm: qualitative study of service users' views

Christabel Owens et al. BJPsych Open. .

Abstract

Background: Patients often have very different ideas from clinicians about what they want treatments to achieve. Their views on what outcomes are important are not always reflected in trials.

Aims: To elicit the views of people who self-harm on the most commonly used outcome measures and to identify the outcomes that matter to them.

Method: We conducted in-depth interviews with 18 people with histories of self-harm, recruited from hospital and community settings. We conducted thematic analysis using a framework approach and used visual mapping to arrive at our final analysis and interpretation.

Results: Participants' accounts contained a number of challenges to the validity and meaningfulness of current trial outcome measures. Five broad issues emerged: (a) relationship between frequency and severity of self-harm; (b) behavioural substitution; (b) self-management skills; (d) the role of self-harm as survival tool and affect regulator, and (e) strategic self-presentation. We show how these affect the visibility and measurability of commonly used outcomes. The outcomes that mattered to participants focused on positive achievements in three domains: (a) general functioning and activities of everyday living; (b) social participation, and (c) engagement with services. Participants conceptualised these as both measures and means of sustained improvement.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that current self-harm trial science rests on flawed assumptions about the relationship between mental states and behaviours and about our ability to measure both. Greater understanding of the outcomes that matter to people who self-harm is needed to inform both intervention development and trial design.

Keywords: Self-harm; outcome measurement; patient perspectives; qualitative research; trial outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interest: None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Challenges to the validity of current outcome measures.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Conventional versus user-defined outcome measures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Royal College of Psychiatrists. Self-Harm, Suicide and Risk: Helping People who Self-Harm. Final Report of a Working Group. Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010.
    1. Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181: 193–9. - PubMed
    1. Zahl D, Hawton K. Repetition of deliberate self-harm and subsequent suicide risk: long-term follow-up study of 11,583 patients. Br J Psychiatry 2004; 185: 70–5. - PubMed
    1. Sinclair J, Gray A, Rivero-Arias O, Saunders K, Hawton K. Healthcare and social services resource use and costs of self-harm patients. Soc Psychiat Epidemiol 2011; 46: 263–71. - PubMed
    1. Clements C, Turnbull P, Hawton K, Geulayov G, Waters K, Ness J, et al. Rates of self-harm presenting to general hospitals: a comparison of data from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England and Hospital Episode Statistics. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e009749. - PMC - PubMed