A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after second or subsequent episodes of self-harm: the Self-Harm Intervention - Family Therapy (SHIFT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. SETTING: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people's and caregivers' quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. LIMITATIONS: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of systemic family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: a pragmatic, phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. METHODS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87-1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group). INTERPRETATION: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT), a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after a second or subsequent episode of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common in the community with a lifetime prevalence of 13 %. It is associated with an elevated risk of overall mortality and suicide. People who harm themselves are high users of public services. Estimates of the 1-year risk of repetition vary between 5 and 15 % per year. Currently, limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of clinical interventions for young people who engage in self-harm. Recent reviews have failed to demonstrate any effect on reducing repetition of self-harm among adolescents receiving a range of treatment approaches. Family factors are particularly important risk factors associated with fatal and non-fatal self-harm among children and adolescents. Family therapy focuses on the relationships, roles and communication patterns between family members, but there have been relatively few studies of specifically family-focused interventions with this population. The Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT) Trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (grant no. 07/33/01) following a commissioned call for this research. METHODS/DESIGN: SHIFT is a pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, individually randomised, controlled trial comparing Family Therapy (FT) with treatment as usual (TAU) for adolescents aged 11 to 17 who have engaged in at least two episodes of self-harm. Both therapeutic interventions were delivered within the National Health Service (NHS) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in England. Participants and therapists were, of necessity, aware of treatment allocation, but the researchers were blind to the allocations to allow unbiased collection of follow-up data. Primary outcome data (repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months post-randomisation) were collected from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), augmented by directed searches of medical records at Acute Trusts. Secondary outcome data (including suicidal intent, depression, hopelessness and health economics) were collected at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation via researcher-participant interviews and by post at 3 and 6 months. DISCUSSION: SHIFT will provide a well-powered evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of Family Therapy for young people who have self-harmed on more than one occasion. The study will be reported in 2016, and the results will inform clinical practice thereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN59793150 . 26 January 2009.

Practitioner review: The effectiveness of systemic family therapy for children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Systemic family therapy has become a widely used intervention in child and adolescent mental health services over the last twenty years. METHODS: This paper reviews the development of systemic family therapy, briefly describes the theory and techniques associated with the most prominent contemporary strands of systemic practice, and examines the empirical justification for using systemic family therapies with children and adolescents. RESULTS: There is a paucity of well-designed randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies with children and adolescents and those trials that do exist evaluate older structural and strategic therapies. Methodological limitations of existing research include the use of unrepresentative participants, small sample sizes and wide age ranges. There is a lack of credible no-treatment or alternative treatment controls, tests of clinical as opposed to statistical significance, and conceptually relevant outcome measures that examine underlying interactional mechanisms. The term 'family therapy' encompasses a wide range of interventions and it is not always clear what treatment intervention has been delivered. Nevertheless, there is good evidence for the effectiveness of systemic family therapies in the treatment of conduct disorders, substance misuse and eating disorders, and some support for their use as second-line treatments in depression and chronic illness. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic family therapy is an effective intervention for children and adolescents but further well-designed outcome studies are needed using clearly specified, manualised forms of treatment and conceptually relevant outcome measures.