Resilience to Self-Harm

Crisis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anam Khan ◽  
Michael Ungar

Abstract. Background: Although a wide range of studies discuss prevalence and risk factors associated with self-harm, protective factors that are equally important are rarely explored. Moreover, much of our understanding of young individuals who engage in self-harm come from studies conducted in Western countries with very little emphasis on marginalized groups. Aim: This scoping review identifies research on resilience among marginalized youth and youth living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) who show evidence of self-harm. Method: A scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework was conducted. This effort included drawing upon peer-reviewed research published between January 2000 and September 2020 to identify protective factors and coping strategies that are employed by individuals 10–29 years old with self-harming tendencies. Results: A total of 15 original papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the LMIC publications were from China. Social support, positive youth development, and religiosity were the most frequently reported protective factors. Conclusion: Despite widespread concern about self-harm, there are few peer-reviewed articles that look at resilience or recovery among youth in LMICs and among marginalized young people. In addition to various internal and external protective factors, this scoping review identifies gaps in our understanding of resilience to self-harm among youth belonging to these groups.

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Aggarwal ◽  
George Patton ◽  
Nicola Reavley ◽  
Shreenivas A Sreenivasan ◽  
Michael Berk

Background: Self-harm (defined here as an act of intentionally causing harm to own self, irrespective of the type, motive or suicidal intent) is one of the strongest antecedents of suicide in youth. While there have been a number of studies of youth self-harm in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is currently no systematic review of studies of prevalence rates and risk and protective factors. Aim: To systematically review the evidence relating to the prevalence rates and forms of self-harm in youth in LMICs and its relationship to family economic status, family functioning, relationship with the peer group, social relationships and academic performance. Methods: Electronic searches of three databases, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus, were performed. In total, 27 school-, community- and hospital-based studies evaluating self-harm in LMICs with youth focus (with participants between 12 and 25 years) were included. Results: The self-harm was divided into suicidal and non-suicidal depending on the nature of self-harm. The 12-month prevalence rates of non-suicidal self-harm varied from 15.5% to 31.3%, and the range of suicidal behaviour rates was from 3.2% to 4.7%. Banging and hitting were the most common in the community-based studies, followed by cutting, scratching and wound picking. Self-poisoning with pesticides was most commonly reported in hospital-based studies. Risk factors for self-harm were family conflict, peer groups with members indulging in self-harm, truancy and school absenteeism. Protective factors were having an understanding family, having friends and higher school competence. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and attempts were lack of close friends and history of suicide by a friend. Conclusion: The 12-month prevalence rates of youth self-harm in LMICs are comparable to high-income countries (HICs). The profile of risk and protective factors suggests that family-based interventions could be useful in treatment and prevention. Future studies should aim for greater consistency in assessment methods and the constructs under evaluation.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e045005
Author(s):  
Fadia Gamieldien ◽  
Roshan Galvaan ◽  
Bronwyn Myers ◽  
Zarina Syed ◽  
Katherine Sorsdahl

ObjectiveTo examine the literature on how recovery of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is conceptualised in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), and in particular what factors are thought to facilitate recovery.DesignScoping review.Data sources and eligibilityWe searched 14 electronic databases, hand searched citations and consulted with experts during the period May–December 2019. Eligible studies were independently screened for inclusion and exclusion by two reviewers. Unresolved discrepancies were referred to a third reviewer.Data extraction and synthesisAll bibliographical data and study characteristics were extracted using a data charting form. Selected studies were analysed through a thematic analysis emerging from extracted data.ResultsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram offers a summary of the results: 4201 titles, 1530 abstracts and 109 full-text articles were screened. Ten articles were selected for inclusion: two from Turkey, two from India, and one each from China, Swaziland, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. Although most studies used qualitative methods, data collection and sampling methods were heterogeneous. One study reported on service provider perspectives while the rest provided perspectives from a combination of service users and caregivers. Three themes emerged from the data analysis. First, studies frame recovery as a personal journey occurring along a continuum. Second, there was an emphasis on social relationships as a facilitator of recovery. Third, spirituality emerged as both a facilitator and an indicator of recovery. These themes were not mutually exclusive and some overlap exists.ConclusionAlthough there were commonalities with how high-income countries describe recovery, we also found differences in conceptualisation. These differences in how recovery was understood reflect the importance of framing the personal recovery concept in relation to local needs and contextual issues found in LMICs. This review highlighted the current sparse evidence base and the need to better understand recovery from SMI in LMICs.


Diabetologia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Beran ◽  
Maria Lazo-Porras ◽  
Camille M. Mba ◽  
Jean Claude Mbanya

AbstractThe discovery of insulin in 1921 changed the prognosis for people with type 1 diabetes. A century later, availability and affordability of insulin remain a challenge in many parts of the globe. Using the WHO’s framework on understanding the life cycle of medicines, this review details the global and national challenges that affect patients’ abilities to access and afford insulin. Current research and development in diabetes has seen some innovations, but none of these have truly been game-changing. Currently, three multinational companies control over 95% of global insulin supply. The inclusion of insulin on the WHO’s Prequalification Programme is an opportunity to facilitate entry of new companies into the market. Many governments lack policies on the selection, procurement, supply, pricing and reimbursement of insulin. Moreover, mark-ups in the supply chain also affect the final price to the consumer. Whilst expenses related to diabetes are mostly covered by insurance in high-income countries, many patients from low- and middle-income countries have to pay out of their own pockets. The organisation of diabetes management within the healthcare system also affects patient access to insulin. The challenges affecting access to insulin are complex and require a wide range of solutions. Given that 2021 marks the centenary of the discovery of insulin, there is need for global advocacy to ensure that the benefits of insulin and innovations in diabetes care reach all individuals living with diabetes. Graphical abstract


2019 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 121-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Abudu-Birresborn ◽  
Lynn McCleary ◽  
Martine Puts ◽  
Vida Yakong ◽  
Lisa Cranley

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (10) ◽  
pp. 1487-1491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean B Nachega ◽  
Nadia A Sam-Agudu ◽  
Lynne M Mofenson ◽  
Mauro Schechter ◽  
John W Mellors

Abstract Although significant progress has been made, the latest data from low- and middle-income countries show substantial gaps in reaching the third “90%” (viral suppression) of the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals, especially among vulnerable and key populations. This article discusses critical gaps and promising, evidence-based solutions. There is no simple and/or single approach to achieve the last 90%. This will require multifaceted, scalable strategies that engage people living with human immunodeficiency virus, motivate long-term treatment adherence, and are community-entrenched and ‑supported, cost-effective, and tailored to a wide range of global communities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document