Cited by 288Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments for Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors in Youth

Open access
Glenn, Catherine R., Franklin, Joseph C., Nock, Matthew K.·2015·Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to review the current evidence base of psychosocial treatments for suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs) in youth. We reviewed major scientific databases (HealthSTAR, MEDLine, PsycINFO, PubMed) for relevant studies published prior to June 2013. The search identified 29 studies examining interventions for suicidal or nonsuicidal SITBs in children or adolescents. No interventions currently meet the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology standards for Level 1: well-established treatments. Six treatment categories were classified as Level 2: probably efficacious or Level 3: possibly efficacious for reducing SITBs in youth. These treatments came from a variety of theoretical orientations, including cognitive-behavioral, family, interpersonal, and psychodynamic theories. Common elements across efficacious treatments included family skills training (e.g., family communication and problem solving), parent education and training (e.g., monitoring and contingency management), and individual skills training (e.g., emotion regulation and problem solving). Several treatments have shown potential promise for reducing SITBs in children and adolescents. However, the probably/possibly efficacious treatments identified each have evidence from only a single randomized controlled trial. Future research should focus on replicating studies of promising treatments, identifying active treatment ingredients, examining mediators and moderators of treatment effects, and developing brief interventions for high-risk periods (e.g., following hospital discharge).

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 · 10.1080/15374416.2014.945211

Cites

134 of 134 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?

  • A systematic review of 29 treatment studies found that no intervention met the standard to be classified as a 'well-established intervention', and only six interventions could be classified as 'probably efficacious'.

    “Similarly, a systematic review of 29 treatment studies (including 18 RCTs) for suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITBs) in youth found that no intervention met the standard to be classified as a ‘well-established intervention’, and only six interventions could be classified as ‘probably efficacious’ [21].”

    From Does treatment method matter? A meta-analysis of the past 20 years of research on therapeutic interventions for self-harm and suicidal ideation in adolescents (2020) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Review of Interventions reports 29 studies, including 18 RCTs, and the Abstract’s Results state that none met the Level 1 well-established standard. The Summary of Evidence-Based Treatments identifies five interventions as Level 2 (probably efficacious) and a sixth as Level 3 (possibly efficacious), not six as probably efficacious. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A previous meta-analysis focused exclusively on a small number (k = 3) of RCTs, and a systematic review of CCTs and pre-post evaluations only included studies published prior to July 2013 (k = 5, no RCTs).

    “However, previous meta-analysis focused exclusively on a small number (k = 3) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; Kothgassner et al., 2020), and the systematic review of controlled clinical trials (CCTs, trials including a control group, but which lack randomization) and pre-post evaluations only included studies published prior to July 2013 (k = 5, no RCTs; Glenn et al., 2015).”

    From Efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy for adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as Glenn et al., 2015

    The Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) section reports five youth DBT studies using non-randomized controlled or pilot designs and says no published RCTs had examined DBT in youth. But those five studies are a subset of the review, which reports 29 intervention studies, including 18 RCTs. The July 2013 cutoff is also not established: the Review Parameters section says articles were searched through before September 2013, while the Abstract says before June 2013; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Standard treatment of suicidality consisting of cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and/or medication has shown limited effects on suicidality.

    “Until recently, standard treatment of suicidality consisted of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), and/or medication, but all showed limited effects on suicidality [11, 13, 14].”

    From The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of attachment-based family therapy for young adults with high suicidal ideation: protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    The CBT and DBT review sections report limited evidence of superiority over comparison treatments for several interventions in youth, and the Concluding Comments state that no treatment for self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in youth was yet well established. The CBT section also reports a trial with no difference in suicide events between CBT, medication, and their combination, but it describes another CBT intervention that reduced suicide attempts relative to usual care. The paper does not establish that these three approaches were the historical standard treatment or that all had limited effects on suicidality generally; its conclusions concern youth. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two previous reviews evaluating psychosocial treatments for reducing adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation highlighted DBT-A as a promising treatment.

    “To date, two reviews evaluating the efficacy of psychosocial treatments for reducing adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation have highlighted DBT-A as a promising treatment (Glenn, Franklin, & Nock, 2015; Kothgassner, Robinson, Goreis, Ougrin, & Plener, 2020).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glenn, C. R., Franklin, J. C., & Nock, M. K.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Glenn, Catherine R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology
Published
2014-09-25
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
1-29
ISSN
  • 1537-4416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-4424
OpenAlex
W2081568229
Cited by
288
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 6
FWCI
17.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
The research was supported, in part, by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (F32 MH097354) awarded to Catherine R. Glenn and a MacArthur Fellowship awarded to Matthew K. Nock. We thank Daniel Coppersmith, Sima Shabaneh, and Suzanne Shdo for their assistance reviewing the relevant literature for this manuscript.
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
self-injurious thoughts and behaviors, suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-injury, youth, psychosocial interventions, treatment efficacy, family skills training, parent training, contingency management, emotion regulation, problem solving, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Behavior Therapy, Child, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine, Suicidal Ideation

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