Cochrane · systematic review · CD012013
Interventions for self‐harm in children and adolescents
Hawton, K, Witt, KG, Taylor Salisbury, TL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Common Mental DisordersAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
11
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 9.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 27.3%Low 7 · 63.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Comparison 1: individual CBT‐based psychotherapy versus treatment as usual
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at six months Comparison 1: individual CBT‐based psychotherapy vs treatment | OR 1.88 [0.3, 11.73] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Comparison 2: interventions for patients with multiple episodes of SH or emerging personality problems versus treatment as usual or routine management
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at post‐intervention Comparison 2: interventions for patients with multiple episodes of SH or emerging personality problems vs treatment | OR 0.72 [0.12, 4.4] | 2 studies · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Frequency of SH at post‐intervention Comparison 2: interventions for patients with multiple episodes of SH or emerging personality problems vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 104 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mentalisation Comparison 2: interventions for patients with multiple episodes of SH or emerging personality problems vs treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Comparison 5: group‐based psychotherapy versus treatment as usual
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at six months Comparison 5: group‐based psychotherapy vs treatment | OR 1.72 [0.56, 5.24] | 2 studies · 430 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repetition of SH at 12 months Comparison 5: group‐based psychotherapy vs treatment | OR 0.8 [0.22, 2.97] | 3 studies · 490 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Comparison 6: therapeutic assessment versus treatment as usual (i.e., standard assessment)
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at 12 months Comparison 6: therapeutic assessment vs treatment | OR 0.75 [0.18, 3.06] | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repetition of SH at 24 months Comparison 6: therapeutic assessment vs treatment | OR 0.69 [0.23, 2.14] | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Comparison 7: compliance enhancement plus treatment as usual (i.e., standard disposition planning) versus treatment as usual
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH by six months Comparison 7: compliance enhancement plus treatment as usual (i.e., standard disposition planning) vs treatment | OR 0.67 [0.15, 3.08] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Comparison 8: home‐based family intervention versus treatment as usual
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at six months Comparison 8: home‐based family intervention vs treatment | OR 1.02 [0.41, 2.51] | 1 study · 149 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Comparison 9: remote contact interventions versus treatment as usual
Population: children and adolescents who engage in SH.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of SH at 12 months Comparison 9: remote contact interventions vs treatment | OR 0.5 [0.12, 2.04] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |