Search

Abstract Background Suicidal behaviour is known to aggregate in families. Patients with psychiatric disorders are at higher risk for suicide attempts (SA), however protective and risk genetic variants for suicide appear to be independent of underlying psychiatric disorders. Here we investigate genetic variants in genes important for neurobiological pathways linked to suicidal behaviour and/or associated endophenotypes, for association with SA among patients with co-existing psychiatric illness. Selected gene-gene and gene-environment interactions were also tested. Methods DNA was obtained from bloods of 159 patients (76 suicide attempters and 83 non-attempters), who were profiled for DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric diagnosis. Twenty-eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 18 candidate genes (COMT, 5-HT2A, 5-HT1A, 5-HTR1B, TPH1, MAO-A, TPH2, DBH, CNR1, BDNF, ABCG1, GABRA5, GABRG2, GABRB2, SLC1A2, SLC1A3, NTRK2, CRHR1) were genotyped. Genotyping was performed by KBioscience. Tests of association between genetic variants and SA were conducted using Chi squared and Armitage Trend tests. Binary logistical regression analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of individual genetic variants to the prediction of SA, and to examine SNPs for potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Results Our analysis identified 4 SNPs (rs4755404, rs2269272, rs6296 and rs1659400), which showed evidence of association with SA compared to a non-attempter control group. We provide evidence of a 3-locus gene-gene interaction, and a putative gene-environment interaction, whereby genetic variation at the NTRK2 locus may moderate the risk associated with history of childhood abuse. Conclusion Preliminary findings suggest that allelic variability in SLC1A2/3, 5-HTR1B and NTRK2 may be relevant to the underlying diathesis for suicidal acts.

Background: Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested., Purpose: The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability., Methods: Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA)., Results: Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability., Conclusions: The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Reducing suicide risk in middle-aged males (40-54 years) is a national priority. People have often presented to their GP within 3 months before suicide thus highlighting an opportunity for early intervention., Aim: To describe the sociodemographic characteristics and identify antecedents in middle-aged males who recently consulted a GP before dying by suicide., Design and Setting: This study was a descriptive examination of suicide in a national consecutive sample of middle-aged males in 2017 in England, Scotland, and Wales., Method: General population mortality data were obtained from the Office for National Statistics and National Records of Scotland. Information was collected about antecedents considered relevant to suicide from data sources. Logistic regression examined associations with final recent GP consultation. Males with lived experience were consulted during the study., Results: In 2017, a quarter ( n = 1516) of all suicide deaths were in middle-aged males. Data were attained on 242 males: 43% had their last GP consultation within 3 months of suicide; and a third of these males were unemployed and nearly half were living alone. Males who saw a GP recently before suicide were more likely to have had recent self-harm and work-related problems than males who had not. Having a current major physical illness, recent self-harm, presenting with a mental health problem, and recent work-related issues were associated with having a last GP consultation close to suicide., Conclusion: Clinical factors were identified that GPs should be alert to when assessing middle-aged males. Personalised holistic management may have a role in preventing suicide in these individuals., (© The Authors.)

Background: Individuals with psychosis have poor oral health compared with the general population. The interaction between oral health and psychosis is likely to be complex and have important ramifications for improving dental and mental health outcomes. However, this relationship is poorly understood and rarely studied using qualitative methods., Aims: To explore patient perspectives on the relationship between oral health and psychosis., Method: The authors recruited 19 people with experiences of psychosis from community mental health teams, early intervention in psychosis services, and rehabilitation units. Participants completed a qualitative interview. Transcripts were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis., Results: The analysis resulted in three themes: theme 1, psychosis creates barriers to good oral health, including a detachment from reality, the threat of unusual experiences and increased use of substances; theme 2, the effects of poor oral health in psychosis, with ramifications for self-identify and social relationships; and theme 3, systems for psychosis influence oral health, with central roles for formal and informal support networks., Conclusions: Psychosis was perceived to affect adherence to oral health self-care behaviours and overall oral health. Poor oral health negatively affected self-identity and social relationships. Clinical implications include a systemic approach to provide early intervention and prevention of the sequelae of dental disease, which lead to tooth loss and impaired oral function and aesthetics, which in turn affect mental health. Participants felt that mental health services play an important role in supporting people with oral health.

Background: Psychological therapies following an episode of self-harm should happen quickly to ensure patients receive the care they need and to reduce the likelihood of repetition., Aims: We sought to explore patients' subjective experience of accessing psychological therapies following self-harm and their views on improving practice., Method: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 128 patients and 23 carers aged 18 years or over from 16 English mental health trusts, from community organisations and via social media. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data., Results: Participants reported long waiting times, multiple failed promises and rejection when trying to access psychological therapies following self-harm. Poor communication and information provision contributed to uncertainty, worsening mental health and further self-harm. Other barriers included: lack of tailored interventions, stigmatising responses, use of exclusionary thresholds to access services, and punitive approaches to treating these patients. Participant recommendations to improve access to psychological therapies included: (a) the importance of compassionate and informed staff; (b) having timely access to aftercare from well-funded and well-resourced teams; (c) continuity of care, improved communication, and support during waiting times and while navigating the referral process; (d) greater information on the availability and benefits of psychological therapies; and (e) greater choice and flexibility over interventions., Conclusion: Our findings identify long waiting times and inadequate service provision as barriers to high-quality and safe aftercare for patients who have self-harmed. Consistent with clinical guidelines, all patients should receive prompt aftercare and access to tailored psychological treatments following a self-harm episode.

Background: Family involvement has been identified as a key aspect of clinical practice that may help to prevent suicide., Aims: To investigate how families can be effectively involved in supporting a patient accessing crisis mental health services., Method: A multi-site ethnographic investigation was undertaken with two crisis resolution home treatment teams in England. Data included 27 observations of clinical practice and interviews with 6 patients, 4 family members, and 13 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis., Results: Three overarching themes described how families and carers are involved in mental healthcare. Families played a key role in keeping patients safe by reducing access to means of self-harm. They also provided useful contextual information to healthcare professionals delivering the service. However, delivering a home-based service can be challenging in the absence of a supportive family environment or because of practical problems such as the lack of suitable private spaces within the home. At an organisational level, service design and delivery can be adjusted to promote family involvement., Conclusions: Findings from this study indicate that better communication and dissemination of safety and care plans, shared learning, signposting to carer groups and support for carers may facilitate better family involvement. Organisationally, offering flexible appointment times and alternative spaces for appointments may help improve services for patients.

Background: Timely provision of aftercare following self-harm may reduce risks of repetition and premature death, but existing services are frequently reported as being inadequate., Aims: To explore barriers and facilitators to accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients presenting to hospital following self-harm, from the perspective of liaison psychiatry practitioners., Method: Between March 2019 and December 2020, we interviewed 51 staff members across 32 liaison psychiatry services in England. We used thematic analyses to interpret the interview data., Results: Barriers to accessing services may heighten risk of further self-harm for patients and burnout for staff. Barriers included: perceived risk, exclusionary thresholds, long waiting times, siloed working and bureaucracy. Strategies to increase access to aftercare included: (a) improving assessments and care plans via input from skilled staff working in multidisciplinary teams (e.g. including social workers and clinical psychologists); (b) supporting staff to focus on assessments as therapeutic intervention; (c) probing boundaries and involving senior staff to negotiate risk and advocate for patients; and (d) building relationships and integration across services., Conclusions: Our findings highlight practitioners' views on barriers to accessing aftercare and strategies to circumvent some of these impediments. Provision of aftercare and psychological therapies as part of the liaison psychiatry service were deemed as an essential mechanism for optimising patient safety and experience and staff well-being. To close treatment gaps and reduce inequalities, it is important to work closely with staff and patients, learn from experiences of good practice and implement change more widely across services.

Background: The volitional help sheet for self-harm equips people with the means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Improving acceptability may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was developed to guide the assessment of intervention acceptability, but to date, no studies have applied the TFA to understand acceptability of interventions for self-harm., Aims: To apply the TFA to (a) explore people's experiences of a brief intervention to reduce repeat self-harm; and (b) understand the most prominent aspects of intervention acceptability, to make recommendations for intervention refinements and successful implementation., Method: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had previously self-harmed. The TFA informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the TFA., Results: Four TFA domains were identified that were associated with acceptability of the volitional help sheet for self-harm: affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness. People were generally positive about using the volitional help sheet (affective attitude), understood the volitional help sheet and how it worked (intervention coherence), highlighted engagement as a motivating factor in using the volitional help sheet (perceived burden) and described how the volitional help sheet could be implemented by healthcare professionals (perceived effectiveness)., Conclusions: Further modifications could still be made, but it is hoped that this intervention provides a useful tool for individuals to construct their own personalised implementation intentions, and as part of longer-term support for preventing self-harm as delivered by healthcare professionals.

Objective: Psychosocial assessment following self-harm presentations to hospital is an important aspect of care. However, many people attending hospital following self-harm do not receive an assessment. We sought to explore reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm from the perspective of patients and carers., Methods: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients and 14 carers aged ⩾18 years from 16 mental health trusts and community organisations in the United Kingdom, via social media, to a co-designed qualitative survey. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data., Results: Patients' reasons for refusing an assessment included long waiting times, previous problematic interactions with staff and feeling unsafe when in the emergency department. Two people refused an assessment because they wanted to harm themselves again. Participants reported organisational reasons for non-assessment, including clinicians not offering assessments and exclusion due to alcohol intoxication. Other patients felt they did not reach clinically determined thresholds because of misconceptions over perceived heightened fatality risk with certain self-harm methods (e.g. self-poisoning vs self-cutting)., Conclusion: Our results provide important insights into some of the reasons why some people may not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm. Parallel assessments, compassionate care and specialist alcohol services in acute hospitals may help reduce the number of people who leave before an assessment. Education may help address erroneous beliefs that self-injury and self-harm repetition are not associated with greatly raised suicide risk.

Background: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of people living in the community who have previously self-harmed and may benefit from interventions during and after COVID-19. We therefore aimed to: (a) examine the relationship between reported self-harm and COVID-19-related fear, and (b) describe the characteristics of a community sample of people who reported a lifetime history of self-harm., Methods: A cross-sectional national online survey of UK adults who reported a lifetime history of self-harm (n = 1029) was conducted. Data were collected May - June 2020. Main outcomes were self-reported COVID-19-related fear (based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale [FCV-19S]), lifetime history of COVID-19, and lifetime history of self-harm. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Chi-square was used to compare characteristics of our sample with available national data., Results: Overall, 75.1, 40.2 and 74.3% of the total sample reported lifetime suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts and non-suicidal self-harm respectively. When adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, social grade, and exposure to death and suicide, binary logistic regression showed higher levels of perceived symptomatic (or physiological) reactions to COVID-19 were associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.07, 1.39) and suicidal attempts (OR = 3.91, 95%CI 1.18, 12.96) in the past week., Conclusions: Results suggest an urgent need to consider the impact of COVID-19 on people with a lifetime history of self-harm when designing interventions to help support people in reducing suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Experiencing symptomatic reactions of fear in particular is associated with self-harm. Helping to support people to develop coping plans in response to threat-related fear is likely to help people at risk of repeat self-harm during public health emergencies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The volitional help sheet (VHS) for self-harm equips people with a means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Although there is some evidence of its efficacy, improving acceptability and making the intervention available in a web-based format may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach., Objective: This study aims to use the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to explore the acceptability of the VHS, examine for whom and under what circumstances this intervention is more or less acceptable, and develop a series of recommendations for how the VHS can be used to support people in reducing repeat self-harm., Methods: We explored acceptability in two phases. First, our patient and public involvement partners evaluated the original VHS from a lived experience perspective, which was subsequently translated into a web-based format. Second, a representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom who had previously self-harmed were recruited via a YouGov survey (N=514) and were asked to rate the acceptability of the VHS based on the seven constructs of the TFA, namely, affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-tailed t tests, and binary logistic regression. A directed content analysis approach was used to analyze qualitative data., Results: Participants in the web-based survey rated the VHS as positive (affective attitude; t 457 =4.72; P<.001); were confident using it (self-efficacy; t 457 =9.54; P<.001); felt they did not have to give up any benefits, profits, or values when using it (opportunity costs; t 439 =-15.51; P<.001); understood it and how it worked (intervention coherence; t 464 =11.90; P<.001); and were confident that it would achieve its purpose (perceived effectiveness; t 466 =2.04; P=.04). The TFA domain burden appeared to be an important indicator of acceptability. Lower levels of perceived burden when using the VHS tool were more prevalent among younger adults aged 18-24 years (OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.50-8.78), people of White ethnic background (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.06-8.613), and people without a long-term health condition (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.30). Perceived modifications to further improve acceptability included improved formatting (burden), the feature to add new situations and responses or amend existing ones (ethicality), and clearer instructions and further detail about the purpose of the VHS (intervention coherence)., Conclusions: Our findings show high levels of acceptability among some people who have previously self-harmed, particularly among younger adults, people of White ethnic backgrounds, and people without long-term health conditions. Future research should aim to improve acceptability among older adults, people from minority ethnic groups, and people with long-term health conditions., (©Chris Keyworth, Rory O'Connor, Leah Quinlivan, Christopher J Armitage. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.09.2021.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the rapid implementation of changes to practice in mental health services, in particular transitions of care. Care transitions pose a particular threat to patient safety., Aims: This study aimed to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders about the impact of temporary changes in practice and policy of mental health transitions as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on perceived healthcare quality and safety., Method: Thirty-four participants were interviewed about quality and safety in mental health transitions during May and June 2020 (the end of the first UK national lockdown). Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted to generate in-depth information pertaining to various stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and key informants). Results were analysed thematically., Results: The qualitative data highlighted six overarching themes in relation to practice changes: (a) technology-enabled communication; (b) discharge planning and readiness; (c) community support and follow-up; (d) admissions; (e) adapting to new policy and guidelines; (f) health worker safety and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated some quality and safety concerns such as tensions between teams, reduced support in the community and increased threshold for admissions. Also, several improvement interventions previously recommended in the literature, were implemented locally., Discussion: The practice of mental health transitions has transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting quality and safety. National policies concerning mental health transitions should concentrate on converting the mostly local and temporary positive changes into sustainable service quality improvements and applying systematic corrective policies to prevent exacerbations of previous quality and safety concerns., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is becoming more commonplace in mental health research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Few studies have documented and evaluated PPI in self-harm and suicide research. Inconsistent reporting of PPI makes it difficult to discern practices that deliver quality, effective and meaningful involvement. It is important to understand and address emotional support needs of PPI members contributing to sensitive topics such as suicide and self-harm. Therefore, this study will examine the effect of PPI on self-harm and suicide research and explore patients', carers' and researchers' experiences and views in relation to the quality of PPI practice and provision of appropriate support for PPI members., Methods: This protocol outlines the longitudinal, mixed methodological approach that will be taken. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via baseline and repeated questionnaires, document review and semi-structured interviews. Both PPI members and researchers will be invited to participate in this study. The two-year data collection period will enable evaluation of PPI throughout the entire research cycle. An integrated approach will be taken to data analysis, using inductive thematic analysis and descriptive and repeated measures analyses, to address specified study aims., Dissemination: Findings from this study will inform practical guidance to support self-harm and suicide researchers in effectively involving people with experiential knowledge in their research. Analyses will offer insight into the effect of PPI throughout the research process and assess changes in PPI members' and researchers' experiences of involvement across a two-year period., (© 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Individuals attending emergency departments following self-harm have increased risks of future self-harm. Despite the common use of risk scales in self-harm assessment, there is growing evidence that combinations of risk factors do not accurately identify those at greatest risk of further self-harm and suicide., Aims: To evaluate and compare predictive accuracy in prediction of repeat self-harm from clinician and patient ratings of risk, individual risk-scale items and a scale constructed with top-performing items., Method: We conducted secondary analysis of data from a five-hospital multicentre prospective cohort study of participants referred to psychiatric liaison services following self-harm. We tested predictive utility of items from five risk scales: Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS, Modified SAD PERSONS, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and clinician and patient risk estimates. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were used to evaluate predictive accuracy, with sensitivity analyses using classification-tree regression., Results: A total of 483 self-harm episodes were included, and 145 (30%) were followed by a repeat presentation within 6 months. AUC of individual items ranged from 0.43-0.65. Combining best performing items resulted in an AUC of 0.56. Some individual items outperformed the scale they originated from; no items were superior to clinician or patient risk estimations., Conclusions: No individual or combination of items outperformed patients' or clinicians' ratings. This suggests there are limitations to combining risk factors to predict risk of self-harm repetition. Risk scales should have little role in the management of people who have self-harmed.

Background: Risk assessments are a central component of mental health care. Few national studies have been done in the UK on risk assessment tools used in mental health services. We aimed to examine which suicide risk assessment tools are in use in the UK; establish the views of clinicians, carers, and service users on the use of these tools; and identify how risk assessment tools have been used with mental health patients before suicide., Methods: We did a mixed-methods study involving three components: collection and content analysis of risk assessment tools used by UK mental health services; an online survey of clinicians, service-users, and carers; and qualitative telephone interviews with clinicians on their use of risk assessment tools before a suicide death and their views of these tools. The online survey was advertised through the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health's (NCISH) website and social media, and it included both quantitative and open-ended qualitative questions, and respondents were recruited through convenience sampling. For the telephone interviews, we examined the NCISH database to identify clinicians who had been responsible for the care of a patient who died by suicide and who had been viewed as being at low or no immediate risk of suicide., Findings: We obtained 156 risk assessment tools from all 85 National Health Service mental health organisations in the UK, and 85 (one per each organisation) were included in the analysis. We found little consistency in use of these instruments, with 33 (39%) of 85 organisations using locally developed tools. Most tools aimed to predict self-harm or suicidal behaviour (84 [99%] of 85), and scores were used to determine management decisions (80 [94%]). Clinicians described positive aspects of risk tools (facilitating communication and enhancing therapeutic relationships) but also expressed negative views (inadequate training in the use of tools and their time-consuming nature). Both patients and carers reported some positive views, but also emphasised little involvement during risk assessment, and a lack of clarity on what to do in a crisis., Interpretation: Assessment processes need to be consistent across mental health services and include adequate training on how to assess, formulate, and manage suicide risk. An emphasis on patient and carer involvement is needed. In line with national guidance, risk assessment should not be seen as a way to predict future behaviour and should not be used as a means of allocating treatment. Management plans should be personalised and collaboratively developed with patients and their families and carers., Funding: The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: National guidelines for the short-term management of self-harm are aimed at healthcare professionals who may be involved in the care of people who have self-harmed. However, evidence from small-scale studies globally suggest there is a lack of awareness of such guidelines among some groups of healthcare professionals. For the first time in a large representative sample of patient-facing healthcare professionals, we aimed to identify: (a) which healthcare professionals are aware of guidelines for the management of self-harm; (b) the perceived availability of training; (c) the use of risk screening tools; and (d) the extent to which healthcare professionals implement guidelines for the management of self-harm., Methods: 1020 UK healthcare professionals completed a cross-sectional survey online., Results: 85.6% (873/1020) of the sample had heard of the national guidelines, but only 24.3% (248/1020) knew "a fair amount" or more about them. Of the respondents who had previously encountered a patient who had self-harmed or was at risk of repeat self-harm, the guidelines were implemented in fewer than 50% (M = 43.89%, SD = 38.79) of encounters. 31% (312/1020) of the sample had received training in managing self-harm and, contrary to guidelines, 2.25% (23/1020) of the sample had used self-harm risk screening tools., Conclusions: Our findings highlight a need to improve knowledge of self-harm management guidelines, and identifies professional groups where awareness and knowledge is currently low. Further work is required to develop interventions to change healthcare professional practice with respect to the implementation of self-harm management guidelines., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Machine learning (ML) is an increasingly popular approach/technique for analyzing "Big Data" and predicting risk behaviors and psychological problems. However, few published critiques of ML as an approach currently exist. We discuss some fundamental cautions and concerns with ML that are relevant when attempting to predict all clinical and forensic risk behaviors (risk to self, risk to others, risk from others) and mental health problems. We hope to provoke a healthy scientific debate to ensure that ML's potential is realized and to highlight issues and directions for future risk prediction, assessment, management, and prevention research. ML, by definition, does not require the model to be specified by the researcher. This is both its key strength and its key weakness. We argue that it is critical that the ML algorithm (the model or models) and the results are both presented and that ML needs to be become machine-assisted learning like other statistical techniques; otherwise, we run the risk of becoming slaves to our machines. Emerging evidence potentially challenges the superiority of ML over other approaches, and we argue that ML's complexity significantly limits its clinical utility. Based on the available evidence, we believe that researchers and clinicians should emphasize identifying, understanding, and explaining (formulating) individual clinical needs and risks and providing individualized management and treatment plans, rather than trying to predict or putting too much trust in predictions that will inevitably be wrong some of the time (and we do not know when). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The United Nations has called for increased public participation in scientific research, to benefit professionals, the public and the planet. Citizen science has been suggested as a cost-effective means by which this call can be met, and by which monitoring for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may be carried out. Indeed, citizen science has gained significant attention in recent years as the scale of environmental issues surpasses the monitoring resources that currently exist. However, many challenges continue to act as a barrier to the acceptance of citizen science as a reliable scientific approach. Here, the current state of knowledge on the use of citizen science in water quality monitoring is reviewed, and the potential for utilizing this approach to enhance monitoring for SDG Indicator 6.3.2 on the "proportion of bodies of water of good ambient water quality" is evaluated. The objective of this review is to identify key knowledge gaps and hurdles hindering the adoption of citizen science contributions to water quality monitoring under the SDGs, so that these gaps may be addressed in a timely manner for future monitoring programmes.

Citizen science (CS) may be described as research carried out by members of the public with the aim of gathering scientific information for the purpose of aiding in scientific projects. It has many potential advantages, including data collection at a scale not possible by professional scientists alone. The United Nations (UN) has recently recognized citizen science as a potential source of data that may contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The availability of relatively inexpensive water quality monitoring field equipment suitable for CS suggests great potential for increased spatial coverage far beyond that of traditional, laboratory-based monitoring networks for water quality. In support of work towards the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6: "Clean Water and Sanitation", this study tested the use of such field equipment by citizen scientists for SDG Indicator 6.3.2: "Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality". Data generated by 26 citizen scientists were compared with the results produced by an accredited laboratory. The results compared well for most parameters, suggesting that citizen science may be able to contribute towards monitoring ambient water quality for the Sustainable Development Goals., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Suicide and non-fatal self-harm represent key patient safety events in mental healthcare services. However, additional important learning can also be derived by highlighting examples of optimal practice that help to keep patients safe. In this study, we aimed to explore clinicians' views of what constitutes good practice in mental healthcare services in the context of suicide prevention., Methods: Data were extracted from the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) database, a consecutive case series study of suicide by people in contact with mental healthcare services. A large national sample of clinicians' responses was analysed with a hybrid thematic analysis., Results: Responses (n = 2331) were submitted by clinicians across 62 mental healthcare providers. The following five themes illustrated good practice that helps to: 1) promote safer environments, 2) develop stronger relationships with patients and families, 3) provide timely access to tailored and appropriate care, 4) facilitate seamless transitions, and 5) establish a sufficiently skilled, resourced and supported staff team., Conclusion: This study highlighted clinicians' views on key elements of good practice in mental health services. Respondents included practice specific to mental health services that focus on enhancing patient safety via prevention of self-harm and suicide. Clinicians possess important understanding of optimal practice but there are few opportunities to share such insight on a broader scale. A further challenge is to implement optimal practice into routine, daily care to improve patient safety and reduce suicide risk.

Background: Substantial evidence suggests that cognitive deficits might persist after remission of a major depressive episode. However, results are inconsistent relative to the importance, pattern, severity, and moderating factors of this impairment. We aimed to determine how cognitive function following a major depressive episode compares with normal function, to specify the pattern and severity of persistent cognitive dysfunctions, and to examine the potential moderator effect of ten prespecified clinical and demographic variables., Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published research. We searched systematically MEDLINE, Embase, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and relevant reviews identified by our database search, for research published from Jan 1, 1972, up to Jan 31, 2018, for studies of patients with past depression. We included all independent studies of patients who were assessed while in remission from a major depressive episode with at least one cognitive test, with inclusion of a healthy control group assessed with either the same test(s) as the major depressive episode group or with a standardised test with published age-stratified normative data. The main outcome was the difference in cognitive performance between major depressive episode remitters and healthy controls. Effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models for cognitive outcomes classified into 18 standard domains. Moderators of between-study variability were assessed using mixed-effects subgroup analyses and meta-regressions., Findings: Of 10 126 citations identified by our search, 75 cognitive variables from 252 eligible studies (11 882 major depressive episode remitters and 8533 healthy controls) were included in our meta-analysis. Significant deficits following major depressive episode remission were observed in 55 (73%) of the 75 cognitive variables. These deficits (in the domains of processing speed, visual selective attention, working memory, verbal learning, and executive functioning), were generally small (30 [40%] of the 75 variables) or medium (22 [29%]) in size, although three long-term memory variables showed large deficits: g=-0·81 [95% CI -1·01 to -0·61] for logical memory immediate recall, g=-0·88 [-1·19 to -0·57] for logical memory delayed recall, and g=-0·84 [-1·18 to -0·50] for Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery pattern recognition latency. Auditory attention, general autobiographical memory, inhibition ability unconstrained by speed, and intellectual functioning unconstrained by speed were equivalent between major depressive episode remitters and matched controls. The number of previous depressive episodes explained heterogeneity in the majority of variables (z=-2·06 [p=0·039] to z=-4·26 [p<0·0001])., Interpretation: Deficits in selective attention, working memory, and long-term memory persist in remission from a major depressive episode and worsen with repeated episodes. Depression treatments, including relapse prevention, need to target these cognitive functions to optimise prognosis., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Complex challenges may arise when patients present to emergency services with an advance decision to refuse life-saving treatment following suicidal behaviour., Aims: To investigate the use of advance decisions to refuse treatment in the context of suicidal behaviour from the perspective of clinicians and people with lived experience of self-harm and/or psychiatric services., Method: Forty-one participants aged 18 or over from hospital services (emergency departments, liaison psychiatry and ambulance services) and groups of individuals with experience of psychiatric services and/or self-harm were recruited to six focus groups in a multisite study in England. Data were collected in 2016 using a structured topic guide and included a fictional vignette. They were analysed using thematic framework analysis., Results: Advance decisions to refuse treatment for suicidal behaviour were contentious across groups. Three main themes emerged from the data: (a) they may enhance patient autonomy and aid clarity in acute emergencies, but also create legal and ethical uncertainty over treatment following self-harm; (b) they are anxiety provoking for clinicians; and (c) in practice, there are challenges in validation (for example, validating the patient's mental capacity at the time of writing), time constraints and significant legal/ethical complexities., Conclusions: The potential for patients to refuse life-saving treatment following suicidal behaviour in a legal document was challenging and anxiety provoking for participants. Clinicians should act with caution given the potential for recovery and fluctuations in suicidal ideation. Currently, advance decisions to refuse treatment have questionable use in the context of suicidal behaviour given the challenges in validation. Discussion and further patient research are needed in this area., Declaration of Interest: D.G., K.H. and N.K. are members of the Department of Health's (England) National Suicide Prevention Advisory Group. N.K. chaired the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development group for the longer-term management of self-harm and the NICE Topic Expert Group (which developed the quality standards for self-harm services). He is currently chair of the updated NICE guideline for Depression. K.H. and D.G. are NIHR Senior Investigators. K.H. is also supported by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and N.K. by the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.

Background: Risk scales are used widely for assessing individuals presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) following self-harm. There is growing evidence that risk scales have limited clinical utility in identifying episodes at highest risk of repeat self-harm. However, their cost-effectiveness in terms of treatment allocation and subsequent repeat self-harm is unknown. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of five risk scales (SAD PERSONS Scale, Modified SAD PERSONS Scale, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, Manchester Self-Harm Rule, Barratt Impulsivity Scale) and single item clinician and patient ratings of risk., Method: Quality-Adjusted Life Years were estimated for each episode. The five risk scales and the patient rating were compared to the clinician rating. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for each scale, using a range of ICER thresholds. Sensitivity analysis explored different model assumptions., Results: The formal scales were less cost-effective than the clinician and patient ratings across a range of ICER thresholds (£0-£30,000). The five scales were also less cost-effective than the clinician rating in most alternative scenario analyses. However, the clinician rating would be likely to result in unnecessary treatment costs for over half of patients identified as high risk., Limitations: Our primary model depended on the assumption that high-intensity care reduced patients' risk of further self-harm., Conclusion: The use of formal assessment tools for managing self-harm presentations to EDs did not appear to be cost-effective. While the judgement of a mental health clinician was found to be slightly more cost-effective, it still resulted in incorrect allocation of costs and missed treatment opportunities., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest risk of suicide is not known., Method: We compared the predictive accuracy of the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR), ReACT Self-Harm Rule (ReACT), SAD PERSONS Scale (SPS) and Modified SAD PERSONS Scale (MSPS) in an unselected sample of patients attending hospital following self-harm. Data on 4000 episodes of self-harm presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) between 2010 and 2012 were obtained from four established monitoring systems in England. Episodes were assigned a risk category for each scale and followed up for 6 months., Results: The episode-based repeat rate was 28% (1133/4000) and the incidence of suicide was 0.5% (18/3962). The MSHR and ReACT performed with high sensitivity (98% and 94% respectively) and low specificity (15% and 23%). The SPS and the MSPS performed with relatively low sensitivity (24-29% and 9-12% respectively) and high specificity (76-77% and 90%). The area under the curve was 71% for both MSHR and ReACT, 51% for SPS and 49% for MSPS. Differences in predictive accuracy by subgroup were small. The scales were less accurate at predicting suicide than repeat self-harm., Conclusions: The scales failed to accurately predict repeat self-harm and suicide. The findings support existing clinical guidance not to use risk classification scales alone to determine treatment or predict future risk.

Background Scales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking. Aims To evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months. Method A multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy. Results In total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% ( n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0-5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93-99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2-47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41-53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk ( P <0.001). Conclusions Risk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm., Competing Interests: Declaration of interestD.G., K.H. and N.K. are members of the Department of Health's (England) National Suicide Prevention Advisory Group. N.K. chaired the NICE guideline development group for the longer-term management of self-harm and the NICE Topic Expert Group (which developed the quality standards for self-harm services). He is currently chair of the updated NICE guideline for depression. R.O.C. was a member of the NICE guideline development group for the longer-term management of self-harm and is a member of the Scottish Government's suicide prevention implementation and monitoring group., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.)

Background: Suicidal behaviour is known to aggregate in families. Patients with psychiatric disorders are at higher risk for suicide attempts (SA), however protective and risk genetic variants for suicide appear to be independent of underlying psychiatric disorders. Here we investigate genetic variants in genes important for neurobiological pathways linked to suicidal behaviour and/or associated endophenotypes, for association with SA among patients with co-existing psychiatric illness. Selected gene-gene and gene-environment interactions were also tested., Methods: DNA was obtained from bloods of 159 patients (76 suicide attempters and 83 non-attempters), who were profiled for DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric diagnosis. Twenty-eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 18 candidate genes (COMT, 5-HT2A, 5-HT1A, 5-HTR1B, TPH1, MAO-A, TPH2, DBH, CNR1, BDNF, ABCG1, GABRA5, GABRG2, GABRB2, SLC1A2, SLC1A3, NTRK2, CRHR1) were genotyped. Genotyping was performed by KBioscience. Tests of association between genetic variants and SA were conducted using Chi squared and Armitage Trend tests. Binary logistical regression analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of individual genetic variants to the prediction of SA, and to examine SNPs for potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions., Results: Our analysis identified 4 SNPs (rs4755404, rs2269272, rs6296 and rs1659400), which showed evidence of association with SA compared to a non-attempter control group. We provide evidence of a 3-locus gene-gene interaction, and a putative gene-environment interaction, whereby genetic variation at the NTRK2 locus may moderate the risk associated with history of childhood abuse., Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that allelic variability in SLC1A2/3, 5-HTR1B and NTRK2 may be relevant to the underlying diathesis for suicidal acts.

Non-pharmacological measures are recommended prior to use of hypnotics in the latest NICE guidance. This study investigated if non-pharmacological measures are utilised prior to hypnotic prescribing in a general adult psychiatry outpatient setting, and further reviewed patient's sleep quality following implementation of sleep hygiene education. Interviews were conducted with 85 patients, and poor adherence with NICE guidance was found among the 74 (87%) patients previously prescribed a hypnotic. Just five (6.8%) patients recalled use of non-pharmacological measures prior to hypnotic prescription, 47 (63.5%) indicated non-pharmacological measures had not been discussed, while a further 22 (29.7%) could not remember. Improvement in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores following implementation of sleep hygiene education was also noted (P = 0.03). These findings suggest that increased awareness of sleep hygiene education for clinicians may be beneficial.

Suicide is a major public health issue of global concern. It is the leading cause of death in young Irish men, marking suicide and suicidal behaviour as important topics for clinical epidemiology and public health research. Ireland has a statutory obligation from the "Reach Out" policy document to "systematically plan research into suicidal behaviour to address deficits in our knowledge" (pp. 50). Suicide is undoubtedly a complex phenomenon and therefore one which requires advanced methods of investigation and innovative approaches to research the factors underpinning suicide in modern Ireland, the development and evaluation of prevention strategies and the informing of evidence-based policy.