Alcohol use and its association with suicide attempt, suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm in two successive, nationally representative English household samples.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is a risk factor for suicidal behaviour, yet the nature of the relationship is unclear. Most research on the topic is conducted in clinical populations, with few studies exploring this association across the general population. AIMS: We investigated the association between specific domains of alcohol use and suicide attempt, suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm in a general population sample. METHOD: A total of 14 949 adults who completed the 2007 or 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey were included. We measured alcohol use with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Domains of alcohol use relating to risk categories, weekly consumption, binge drinking, dependence symptoms, harmful effects and concern from others were derived from relevant AUDIT items. Self-reported past year suicide attempt, suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm were measured with the Clinical Interview Schedule, Revised. RESULTS: We found a linear association between total AUDIT score and outcomes. Three of six specific domains of alcohol use (dependence symptoms, harmful effects of drinking and binge drinking) were associated with increased odds of all three outcomes. There was no association of outcomes with the other domains of alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of a linear association between total AUDIT score and suicide attempt, suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm in a representative English general population sample. Our analyses suggest that where alcohol use significantly disrupts day-to-day functioning, this may underpin the relationship between alcohol use and suicide-related outcomes to a greater extent than higher alcohol consumption. Longitudinal research is needed to further understand these relationships.

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020. RESULTS: We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.

Household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No clear synthesis of evidence examining household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity exists. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature on associations between household and area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and multimorbidity prevalence or incidence in the general population. METHODS: Six databases (MedLine, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and Scopus) were searched. The search was limited to peer-reviewed studies conducted in high-income countries and published in English between 2010 and 2019. A second reviewer screened all titles with abstracts and a subset of full texts. Study quality was assessed and protocol pre-registered (CRD42019135281). RESULTS: 41 studies spanning North America, Europe and Australasia were included. Household income and area-level deprivation were the most explored with fairly consistent findings. The odds of multimorbidity were up to 4.4 times higher for participants with the lowest level of income compared with the highest level. Those living in the most deprived areas had the highest prevalence or incidence of multimorbidity (pooled OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.42). Associations between deprivation and multimorbidity differed by age and multimorbidity type. Findings from the few studies investigating household tenure, household composition and area-level rurality were mixed and contradictory; homeownership and rurality were associated with increased and decreased multimorbidity, while living alone was found to be associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity and not associated. CONCLUSION: Improving our understanding of broader social determinants of multimorbidity-particularly at the household level-could help inform strategies to tackle multimorbidity.