Turning Point and Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Monash Addiction Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0245780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245780. eCollection 2021.
It is not known if there are discernible patterns in method lethality over successive episodes of self-harm and, if so, how these may be differentially associated with risks of self-harm repetition and suicide. Latent trajectory modelling estimated variation in patterns of suicide attempt lethality in 1,719 individuals attended by ambulance services on at least three occasions between 2012 and 2016. Cox regression modelling investigated hazards of suicide attempt repetition, all-cause, and suicide mortality as a function of these patterns. Two distinct trajectories provided optimal fit (BIC: -39,464.92). The first (Low/Moderate to Low/Moderate Lethality group; 92.5%) consisted of those consistently using methods associated with low to moderate potential lethality throughout the observation period. The second (High to Low/Moderate Lethality group; 7.5%) consisted of those who initially used methods with higher potential lethality but who switched to methods characterised by lower lethality. There were no significant differences between groups in the hazards of reattempting suicide (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.59) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.32). However, those assigned to the High to Low/Moderate Lethality trajectory group may be at greater risk of suicide (Sub-Hazard Ratio [SHR] = 2.82, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.86). There may be discernible sub-groups of patients with important differences in clinical treatment needs and suicide risk profiles. These differences should be considered when undertaking psychosocial risk/needs assessments with those presenting to clinical services following self-harm.
目前尚不清楚在连续的自残事件中,自杀方法的致命性是否存在可识别的模式,如果存在,这些模式与自残复发和自杀的风险如何不同相关。潜在轨迹建模估计了在 2012 年至 2016 年间至少三次由救护车服务接诊的 1719 个人中自杀企图致命性模式的变化。Cox 回归模型调查了这些模式作为自杀企图复发、全因和自杀死亡率的功能的风险。两种不同的轨迹提供了最佳拟合(BIC:-39464.92)。第一个(低/中度到低/中度致命性组;92.5%)由那些在整个观察期内始终使用与低到中度潜在致命性相关的方法的人组成。第二个(高到低/中度致命性组;7.5%)由那些最初使用潜在致命性较高的方法但后来改用潜在致命性较低的方法的人组成。在自杀复发的风险(危险比[HR] = 1.41,95%CI 0.76 至 2.59)或全因死亡率(HR = 1.21,95%CI 0.63 至 2.32)方面,两组之间没有显著差异。然而,那些被分配到高到低/中度致命性轨迹组的人可能面临更大的自杀风险(亚危险比[SHR] = 2.82,95%CI 1.16 至 6.86)。可能存在具有重要临床治疗需求和自杀风险特征差异的可识别亚组患者。在对那些在自残后到临床服务就诊的人进行心理社会风险/需求评估时,应考虑这些差异。