TY - JOUR
T1 - Harm minimisation for self-harm
T2 - a cross-sectional survey of British clinicians' perspectives and practices
AU - Haris, Aishah Madinah
AU - Pitman, Alexandra
AU - Mughal, Faraz
AU - Bakanaite, Evelina
AU - Morant, Nicola
AU - Rowe, Sarah L
N1 - Funding Information:
Competing interests FM is a member of the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Self-harm Clinical Guideline Development Committee. FM was Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Clinical Fellow in mental health 2015-20 and has received research grant funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), NIHR School for Primary Care Research and RCGP Scientific Foundation Board for self-harm in primary care. FM is a member of the expert reference group advising on community and primary care self-harm services in the National Health Service.
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2022/6/3
Y1 - 2022/6/3
N2 - Objective Harm minimisation for self-harm is an alternative to preventive strategies and focuses on maximising safety when self-harming. We explored the views of clinicians on harm minimisation for self-harm to describe reported use and acceptability in clinical practice. Design A cross-sectional study using an online survey consisting of fixed-choice and open-ended questions. Setting Primary and secondary care practices in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants Snowball sampling of UK-based clinicians (n=90; 67% female) working with people who self-harm and who have or have not previously recommended harm minimisation methods to patients. Results Of the 90 clinicians sampled, 76 (84%) reported having recommended harm minimisation techniques to people in their care who self-harm. Commonly recommended techniques were snapping rubber bands on one's wrist and squeezing ice. Other techniques, such as teaching use of clean instruments when self-harming, were less likely to be recommended. Perceived client benefits included harm reduction and promotion of the therapeutic relationship. Perceived potential limitations of a harm minimisation approach for self-harm were (a) potential worsening of self-harm outcomes; (b) ethical reservations; (c) doubts about its effectiveness and appropriateness; and (d) lack of training and clear policies within the workplace. Conclusions In our sample of UK-based clinicians in various settings, harm minimisation for self-harm was broadly recommended for clients who self-harm due to perceived client benefits. However, future policies on harm minimisation must address clinicians' perceived needs for training, well-defined guidelines, and clear evidence of effectiveness and safety to mitigate some clinician concerns about the potential for further harm.
AB - Objective Harm minimisation for self-harm is an alternative to preventive strategies and focuses on maximising safety when self-harming. We explored the views of clinicians on harm minimisation for self-harm to describe reported use and acceptability in clinical practice. Design A cross-sectional study using an online survey consisting of fixed-choice and open-ended questions. Setting Primary and secondary care practices in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants Snowball sampling of UK-based clinicians (n=90; 67% female) working with people who self-harm and who have or have not previously recommended harm minimisation methods to patients. Results Of the 90 clinicians sampled, 76 (84%) reported having recommended harm minimisation techniques to people in their care who self-harm. Commonly recommended techniques were snapping rubber bands on one's wrist and squeezing ice. Other techniques, such as teaching use of clean instruments when self-harming, were less likely to be recommended. Perceived client benefits included harm reduction and promotion of the therapeutic relationship. Perceived potential limitations of a harm minimisation approach for self-harm were (a) potential worsening of self-harm outcomes; (b) ethical reservations; (c) doubts about its effectiveness and appropriateness; and (d) lack of training and clear policies within the workplace. Conclusions In our sample of UK-based clinicians in various settings, harm minimisation for self-harm was broadly recommended for clients who self-harm due to perceived client benefits. However, future policies on harm minimisation must address clinicians' perceived needs for training, well-defined guidelines, and clear evidence of effectiveness and safety to mitigate some clinician concerns about the potential for further harm.
KW - mental health
KW - qualitative research
KW - suicide & self-harm
KW - Cross-Sectional Studies
KW - Harm Reduction
KW - Humans
KW - Female
KW - Male
KW - Self-Injurious Behavior/prevention & control
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Workplace
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056199
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056199
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056199
M3 - Article
C2 - 35980724
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 12
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 6
M1 - e056199
ER -