7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness, acceptability and potential harms of peer support for self-harm in non-clinical settings: systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Many people who have self-harmed prefer informal sources of support or support from those with lived experience. However, little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people who have self-harmed or about the risks of peer support interventions in non-clinical settings.

          Aims

          The aims of this review were to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and potential risks of peer support for self-harm, and how these risks might be mitigated.

          Method

          We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature for papers published since 2000. We included peer support for self-harm that occurred in voluntary-sector organisations providing one-to-one or group support, or via moderated online peer support forums.

          Results

          Eight of the ten papers included focused on peer support that was delivered through online media. No study compared peer support with other treatments or a control group, so limited conclusions could be made about its effectiveness. Peer support for self-harm was found to be acceptable and was viewed as having a range of benefits including a sense of community, empowerment, and access to information and support. The most commonly perceived risk associated with peer support was the potential for triggering self-harm.

          Conclusions

          Our findings highlighted a range of benefits of being part of a group with very specific shared experiences. Mitigations for potential risks include organisations using professional facilitators for groups, trigger warnings for online forums, and providing regular supervision and training so that peers are prepared and feel confident to support vulnerable people while maintaining their own emotional health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

          The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen’s kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from −1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen’s suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

              Background The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. Results The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%). Conclusions Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJPsych Open
                BJPsych Open
                BJO
                BJPsych Open
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2056-4724
                January 2022
                17 January 2022
                : 8
                : 1
                : e28
                Affiliations
                [1]Division of Psychiatry, University College London , UK
                [2]Division of Psychiatry, University College London , UK
                [3]Division of Psychiatry, University College London , UK
                [4]St Andrews , Birmingham, UK
                [5]Samaritans, Surrey, UK
                [6]Samaritans, Surrey, UK
                [7]Division of Psychiatry, University College London , and Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [8]Division of Psychiatry, University College London , UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Sarah Rowe. Email: s.rowe@ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1359
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-6182
                Article
                S2056472421010814
                10.1192/bjo.2021.1081
                8811789
                35034666
                bf97ede1-b2a5-44db-9c67-5ba02e9d67e1
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 August 2021
                : 19 November 2021
                : 05 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, References: 37, Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: Samaritans
                Categories
                Other
                Review

                self-harm,self-injury,peer support,online forums,literature review

                Comments

                Comment on this article