CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 191Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual in recurrent deliberate self-harm: the POPMACT study

TYRER, P., THOMPSON, S., SCHMIDT, U., JONES, V., KNAPP, M., DAVIDSON, K., CATALAN, J., AIRLIE, J. +29 more·2003·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291703008171
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. We carried out a large randomized trial of a brief form of cognitive therapy, manual-assisted cognitive behaviour therapy (MACT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) for deliberate self-harm. Method. Patients presenting with recurrent deliberate self-harm in five centres were randomized to either MACT or (TAU) and followed up over 1 year. MACT patients received a booklet based on cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) principles and were offered up to five plus two booster sessions of CBT from a therapist in the first 3 months of the study. Ratings of parasuicide risk, anxiety, depression, social functioning and global function, positive and negative thinking, and quality of life were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Results. Four hundred and eighty patients were randomized. Sixty per cent of the MACT group had both the booklet and CBT sessions. There were seven suicides, five in the TAU group. The main outcome measure, the proportion of those repeating deliberate self-harm in the 12 months of the study, showed no significant difference between those treated with MACT (39%) and treatment as usual (46%) (OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·53 to 1·14, P=0·20). Conclusion. Brief cognitive behaviour therapy is of limited efficacy in reducing self-harm repetition, but the findings taken in conjunctin with the economic evaluation (Byford et al. 2003) indicate superiority of MACT over TAU in terms of cost and effectiveness combined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291703008171

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Cognitive-behavioural interventions with a problem-solving component have positive effects on self-harm.

    “Furthermore, cognitive-behavioural interventions with a problem-solving component seem to have positive effects on self-harm. 19”

    From Cognitive-behavioural intervention for self-harm: Randomised controlled trial (2008) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
TYRER, P., THOMPSON, S., SCHMIDT, U., JONES, V., KNAPP, M., DAVIDSON, K., CATALAN, J., AIRLIE, J., BAXTER, S., BYFORD, S., BYRNE, G., CAMERON, S., CAPLAN, R., COOPER, S., FERGUSON, B., FREEMAN, C., FROST, S., GODLEY, J., GREENSHIELDS, J., HENDERSON, J., HOLDEN, N., KEECH, P., KIM, L., LOGAN, K., MANLEY, C., MacLEOD, A., MURPHY, R., PATIENCE, L., RAMSAY, L., DE MUNROZ, S., SCOTT, J., SEIVEWRIGHT, H., SIVAKUMAR, K., TATA, P., THORNTON, S., UKOUMUNNE, O. C., & WESSELY, S.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2003-07-31
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
969-976
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291703008171
OpenAlex
W1986974900
Cited by
190
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
15.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
self-harm, usual care, suicide, anxiety, depression, social functioning, quality of life, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Recurrence, Suicide, Attempted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Injurious Behavior

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