We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
We investigated disparities in the clinical management of self-harm following hospital presentation with self-harm according to level of socio-economic deprivation (SED) in England.
Methods
108 092 presentations to hospitals (by 57 306 individuals) after self-harm in the Multicenter Study of Self-harm spanning 17 years. Area-level SED was based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation. Information about indicators of clinical care was obtained from each hospital's self-harm monitoring systems. We assessed the associations of SED with indicators of care using mixed effect models.
Results
Controlling for confounders, psychosocial assessment and admission to a general medical ward were less likely for presentations by patients living in more deprived areas relative to presentations by patients from the least deprived areas. Referral for outpatient mental health care was less likely for presentations by patients from the two most deprived localities (most deprived: adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.77, 95% CI 0.71–0.83, p < 0.0001; 2nd most deprived: aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74–0.87, p < 0.0001). Referral to substance use services and ‘other’ services increased with increased SED. Overall, referral for aftercare was less likely following presentations by patients living in the two most deprived areas (most deprived: aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78–0.92, p < 0.0001; 2nd most deprived: aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.94, p = 0.001).
Conclusions
SED is associated with differential care for patients who self-harm in England. Inequalities in care may exacerbate the risk of adverse outcomes in this disadvantaged population. Further work is needed to understand the reasons for these differences and ways of providing more equitable care.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.