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.

Six years on: a prospective cohort study of male juvenile offenders in secure care.

Longitudinal studies are helpful in understanding developmental trajectories and recognising opportunities for early intervention. This paper describes the long-term needs and mental health of an initial sample of male juvenile offenders, now adults 6 years after their index admission to secure care. In this prospective cohort study of 97 male juvenile offenders admitted to secure, offenders were assessed initially on admission, 2 and 6 years later. Interviews were conducted with 54 offenders at the 6-year follow-up and included an assessment of psychosocial need, mental health and psychopathy. Outcome data on offending behaviour were collected on a total of 71 offenders. Persistent offenders have needs in multiple domains as they transition into adulthood. The majority of offenders were single and about a half were in neither employment nor training. Almost nine out of ten offenders had a substance misuse disorder and a similar number met the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Substance misuse in adolescence was strongly correlated with later substance misuse in adulthood, emphasising the importance of early intervention. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and living with friends and family were both significantly associated with persistent offending behaviour. Many offenders continued to reoffend despite receiving offence-related interventions and custodial care. Interventions currently aimed at reducing recidivism in more severe offenders appear to be ineffective. Persistent offenders would benefit from a multi-modal approach based on individual needs, rather than receiving generic interventions.