Self-harm in men’s prisons: A Scoping Study
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A scoping study mapping current provision for men who self-harm in prison and examining stakeholder perspectives on self-harm and its treatment(PrisScope).
IRAS ID
262835
Contact name
Louise Robinson
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 30 days
Research summary
Prisons are complex and stressful environments where people are separated from the coping strategies and support that they have in the community. Self-harm in men’s prisons is becoming more prevalent and severe. There is an urgent need for interventions to prevent self-harm in men’s prisons. There is little research indicating why men in prison self-harm, which self-harm interventions men might prefer, and the effectiveness of self-harm interventions for men. Before interventions can be designed and evaluated it is important to engage with men in prison and prison staff to understand current provision, motivations for self-harm and their perspectives on self-harm interventions.
This scoping study aims to describe current interventions, process and procedures that are used with men who self-harm in prison. This will involve developing a detailed map of current services in 20% of the men’s prison estate. We will then conduct two focus groups with staff, from two different prisons, and individual interviews with men in prison who self-harm. The focus groups and interviews will be designed to examine why men self-harm in prison and the participants' perspectives on self-harm interventions. The aim of the scoping study is to develop an understanding of men’s self-harm in prisons with a view to developing interventions that can be tested for feasibility and acceptability. The scoping study will be conducted by an established team with experience of designing and evaluating prison-based self-harm interventions.
Lay summary of study results:
Aims/Objectives:
We wanted to explore:
• What self-harm treatments are offered in prisons.
• What men in prison and staff think about different self-harm treatments.
• Which self-harm treatments they preferred, and which might be realistic to provide in prison.Background:
Men’s self-harm in prison has increased. As a group, men self-harm more severely than women. Currently, different prisons offer different treatments, and there is very little evidence regarding how effective self-harm treatments are for this group.Methods:
We interviewed staff from 21 prisons to find out what self-harm treatments they provide.
We conducted interviews/focus groups with 61 staff and 19 interviews with men in prison who had self-harmed in the last six months.Findings:
• Few self-harm treatments are currently offered in men’s prisons
• Men who self-harm and staff thought individual therapy and digital treatments were the best kinds to use
• Staff who work with people who self-harm in prison need their own support
• Treatments need to be delivered safely, respond to men’s needs, avoid unintended harm e.g. bullying/exploitation and be practical to deliver in prison.Dissemination/impact:
We will share findings with people in prison in Inside Times. We will write papers, present at conferences and meet with prison policy and healthcare experts to discuss the research. We want to make sure that the research influences prison policy and practice.Patient/Public Involvement:
People with experience of self-harm in prison contributed to the research design, the planning of interview questions, and understanding the data.Conclusions/plans:
The study showed that there are very few current self-harm interventions. It identified promising areas to research, e.g. individual therapy and digital apps. It found that staff need support when working with men in prison who self-harm. We plan to follow this research with projects to work with people with lived experience to design and try out new treatments.REC name
North East - York Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/NE/0129
Date of REC Opinion
14 Jun 2019
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion