4.3 Review

Help-seeking behaviour and adolescent self-harm: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0004867414555718

关键词

Adolescent; barriers; facilitators; help-seeking; review; self-harm

资金

  1. Guy's & St Thomas' Charity [MAJ120701]
  2. NIHR Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London
  3. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  4. Kings College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Self-harm is common in adolescence, but most young people who self-harm do not seek professional help. The aim of this literature review was to determine (a) the sources of support adolescents who self-harm access if they seek help, and (b) the barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for adolescents who self-harm. Method: Using a pre-defined search strategy we searched databases for terms related to self-harm, adolescents and help-seeking. Studies were included in the review if participants were aged 11-19 years. Results: Twenty articles met criteria for inclusion. Between a third and one half of adolescents who self-harm do not seek help for this behaviour. Of those who seek help, results showed adolescents primarily turned to friends and family for support. The Internet may be more commonly used as a tool for self-disclosure rather than asking for help. Barriers to help-seeking included fear of negative reactions from others including stigmatisation, fear of confidentiality being breached and fear of being seen as attention-seeking'. Few facilitators of help-seeking were identified. Conclusions: Of the small proportion of adolescents who seek help for their self-harm, informal sources are the most likely support systems accessed. Interpersonal barriers and a lack of knowledge about where to go for help may impede help-seeking. Future research should address the lack of knowledge regarding the facilitators of help-seeking behaviour in order to improve the ability of services to engage with this vulnerable group of young people.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据