CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisPsychiatric care and mental health services

A systematic review of behavioral health interventions for suicidal and self-harming individuals in prisons and jails

Open access
Winicov, Natalie·2019·Heliyon
DOI 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02379PMC PMC6734330
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article reviews evaluation studies of interventions aimed at preventing and reducing incidents of suicide and self-harm among incarcerated individuals. Study design, sample characteristics, intervention procedures, study measures, and relevant results of each study are reviewed. The outcomes of interest include severity and frequency of self-harm episodes and suicidal ideation, scores on adaptive coping methods, scoring on the Beck Hopelessness scale and risk scores. The six evaluated studies are peer-reviewed, published between 1990 and 2015, and took place in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan. Treatment modalities widely vary across studies and include cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, peer programming, staff intervention training, and uniquely-designed courses that incorporate various aspects from other treatment modalities. Due to the nature of the studies, only one multi-randomized controlled trial was identified. All identified studies had a pre- and post-treatment design either lacking a comparison group or containing 1-2 comparison groups and conduct follow-up of varying times. While Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) interventions and uniquely-tailored intervention programs suggest promising results, the general absence of comparison groups, the shortage of relevant evaluation studies and the inconsistency of behavioral outcome measurements compromise the capacity of this review. Further, definitional variances, particularly for self-injury (self-harm, non-suicidal self-injury [NSSI], deliberate self-harm, suicidal behavior, etc.) affect the ability to synthesize study results. This article aims to synthesize the literature results to identify the most effective interventions that would benefit from additional research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02379

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unique life factors prisoners experience could influence skill acquisition and retention.

    “deeper acknowledgement of the unique life factors prisoners experience is required, as these could influence skill acquisition and retention (Winicov, 2019).”

    From Group-based mindfulness interventions in prisons: a selective critical review (2024) · cites this paper as Winicov, 2019

    The Limitations section (page unavailable) describes prison-specific conditions, including lockdowns, limited privacy, and facility transfers, that can disrupt treatment delivery. It does not establish that prisoners’ life factors affect skill acquisition or retention specifically; the claim extends the review’s discussion of treatment barriers to those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Current evidence of effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in custodial settings is weak.

    “although current evidence of effectiveness in custodial settings is weak.84”

    From Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [84]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Thornton D. Depression, self-injury and attempted suicide amongst the YOI population Fludger N.L. Simmons I.P. Proceedings of the Prison Psychologists’ Conference, Division of Psychological Services Report Series 1 34 1990 47 55

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Winicov, N.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Winicov, Natalie
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
5
Issue
9
Pages
e02379
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02379
PMC
PMC6734330
OpenAlex
W2971452892
Cited by
40
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
suicide prevention, self-harm, non-suicidal self-injury, incarcerated individuals, jails and prisons, behavioral health interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, suicidal ideation, adaptive coping, hopelessness, risk score, intervention effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review