Background The efficacy of interventions and treatments for self-harm is well researched. Previous reviews of the literature have highlighted the lack of definitively effective interventions for self-harm and have highlighted the need for future research. These recommendations are also reflected in clinical guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( NICE, 2004 ) which also call for service user involvement in studies of treatment efficacy. Aims A systematic review was undertaken to determine: a) what contributions service users have made to the evaluation of psycho-social interventions; b) by what methods have service users been involved; c) in what ways could service user involvement supplement empirical evidence for interventions. Methodology Electronic searches were completed on the 28th January 2011 of the Medline (1950–present), Web of Science (1898–Present), Web of Science (including Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Psychinfo (1979–present) databases using a combination of 13 search terms. References were independently sifted according to set criteria by two of the authors to ensure inter-rater reliability. Results Sixty-five references were included in the review. Of these, 59% of studies were empirically based, and 26% used qualitative data collection methods to gather service user narratives. Only 8% of studies used a mixed-methodology to combined qualitative and quantitative data collection. No studies featured service user involvement. Conclusion Service user involvement is a rarity in the evaluation of psycho-social interventions, despite its use being mandated by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and evidenced as effective in other areas of mental health ( Leader, 1998 ). The authors make a number of recommendations for future involvement in future self-harm research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ward et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: