Cited by 126Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse

Prevention of Suicidal Behavior in Prisons: An Overview of Initiatives Based on a Systematic Review of Research on Near-Lethal Suicide Attempts

Open access
Marzano, Lisa, Hawton, Keith, Rivlin, Adrienne, Smith, E. Naomi, Piper, Mary, Fazel, Seena·2016·Crisis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, prisoners are at high risk of suicide. Research on near-lethal suicide attempts can provide important insights into risk and protective factors, and inform suicide prevention initiatives in prison. AIMS: To synthesize findings of research on near-lethal attempts in prisons, and consider their implications for suicide prevention policies and practice, in the context of other research in custody and other settings. METHOD: We searched two bibliographic indexes for studies in any language on near-lethal and severe self-harm in prisoners, supplemented by targeted searches over the period 2000-2014. We extracted information on risk factors descriptively. Data were not meta-analyzed owing to heterogeneity of samples and methods. RESULTS: We identified eight studies reporting associations between prisoner near-lethal attempts and specific factors. The latter included historical, prison-related, and clinical factors, including psychiatric morbidity and comorbidity, trauma, social isolation, and bullying. These factors were also identified as important in prisoners' own accounts of what may have contributed to their attempts (presented in four studies). CONCLUSION: Factors associated with prisoners' severe suicide attempts include a range of potentially modifiable clinical, psychosocial, and environmental factors. We make recommendations to address these factors in order to improve detection, management, and prevention of suicide risk in prisoners.

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 · 10.1027/0227-5910/a000394

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • Previous reviews were limited by being narrative syntheses that did not use quantitative methods to evaluate the strength, quality, and consistency of the available evidence.

    “Reviews16, 17, 18 have been limited by being narrative syntheses of the literature that do not use quantitative methods to evaluate the strength, quality, and consistency of the available evidence.”

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: 7

  1. Bailey J., McHugh M., Chisnall L., & Forbes D. (2000). Training staff in suicide awareness In Towl G., Snow L., & McHugh M. (Eds.), Suicide in Prison. Oxford, UK: BPS Blackwell.
  2. Fairweather C. B. (1999). Punishment first verdict later: A review of conditions for remand prisoners in Scotland at the end of the 20th century. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive.
  3. McCann R. A., Ivanoff A., Schmidt H., & Beach B. (2007). Implementing dialectical behavior therapy in residential forensic settings with adults and juveniles In Dimeff L. A. & Koerner K. (Eds.), Dialectical behavior therapy in clinical practice: Applications across disorders and settings (pp. 112– 144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  4. Ministry of Justice (2015). Safety in custody - quarterly update to September 2014. London, UK: Author.
  5. Mitchell J., Trotter G., & Donlon L. (2002). ACCESS-working to reduce self-harm and bullying among juvenile offenders. Prison Service Journal,, 31– 35.
  6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2011). Self-harm: Longer-term management. London, UK: Author. 31886959
  7. Shaw J., & Humber N. (2010). Suicide and self-injury in offenders In Towl G. & Crighton D. (Eds.), Forensic psychology. (pp. 384– 397). Chichester, UK: Blackwell.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marzano, L., Hawton, K., Rivlin, A., Smith, E. N., Piper, M., & Fazel, S.
Affiliations
  • Middlesex University London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Public Health England (GB)
Corresponding author
Fazel, Seena
Venue
Crisis
Published
2016-09
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
323-334
ISSN
  • 0227-5910 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2396
OpenAlex
W2469888201
Cited by
126
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
13.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Crisis (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095806)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Keywords
prison suicide, suicide prevention, prisons, self-harm, psychiatric morbidity, trauma, social isolation, bullying, risk factors, protective factors, suicide risk identification
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Humans, Prisoners, Prisons, Suicide, Attempted

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