Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Aug;7(8):682-691.
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30190-5.

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Louis Favril et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Self-harm is a leading cause of morbidity in prisoners. Although a wide range of risk factors for self-harm in prisoners has been identified, the strength and consistency of effect sizes is uncertain. We aimed to synthesise evidence and assess the risk factors associated with self-harm inside prison.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) for observational studies on risk factors for self-harm in prisoners published from database inception to Oct 31, 2019, supplemented through correspondence with authors of studies. We included primary studies involving adults sampled from general prison populations who self-harmed in prison and a comparison group without self-harm in prison. We excluded studies with qualitative or ecological designs, those that reported on lifetime measures of self-harm or on selected samples of prisoners, and those with a comparison group that was not appropriate or not based on general prison populations. Data were extracted from the articles and requested from study authors. Our primary outcome was the risk of self-harm for risk factors in prisoners. We pooled effect sizes as odds ratios (OR) using random effects models for each risk factor examined in at least three distinct samples. We assessed study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and examined between-study heterogeneity. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018087915.

Findings: We identified 35 independent studies from 20 countries comprising a total of 663 735 prisoners, of whom 24 978 (3·8%) had self-harmed in prison. Across the 40 risk factors examined, the strongest associations with self-harm in prison were found for suicide-related antecedents, including current or recent suicidal ideation (OR 13·8, 95% CI 8·6-22·1; I2=49%), lifetime history of suicidal ideation (8·9, 6·1-13·0; I2=56%), and previous self-harm (6·6, 5·3-8·3; I2=55%). Any current psychiatric diagnosis was also strongly associated with self-harm (8·1, 7·0-9·4; I2=0%), particularly major depression (9·3, 2·9-29·5; I2=91%) and borderline personality disorder (9·2, 3·7-22·5; I2=81%). Prison-specific environmental risk factors for self-harm included solitary confinement (5·6, 2·7-11·6; I2=98%), disciplinary infractions (3·5, 1·2-9·7; I2=99%), and experiencing sexual or physical victimisation while in prison (3·2, 2·1-4·8; I2=44%). Sociodemographic (OR range 1·5-2·5) and criminological (1·8-2·3) factors were only modestly associated with self-harm in prison. We did not find clear evidence of publication bias.

Interpretation: The wide range of risk factors across clinical and custody-related domains underscores the need for a comprehensive, prison-wide approach towards preventing self-harm in prison. This approach should incorporate both population and targeted strategies, with multiagency collaboration between the services for mental health, social care, and criminal justice having a key role.

Funding: Wellcome Trust.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection *Articles were sometimes excluded for multiple reasons; the numbers listed are based on the major reasons for article exclusion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Previous self-harm as a risk factor for self-harm in prison The dots represent the effect sizes and the lines represent the 95% CI from each primary study. The size of the grey boxes reflects the weight attributed to each study. Weights are from random effects analysis. The diamond denotes the pooled summary effect size and CIs. OR=odds ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Psychiatric disorders as risk factors for self-harm in prison The dots represent the effect sizes and the lines represent the 95% CI from each primary study. The size of the grey boxes reflects the weight attributed to each study. Weights are from random effects analysis. The diamonds denote the pooled summary effect size and CIs. OR=odds ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Leading risk factors for self-harm in prison from each domain The dots denote the summary effect sizes from random effects models and the lines denote 95% CIs for all studies. OR=odds ratio.

Comment in

References

    1. Walmsley R. World prison population list, twelfth edition. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wp...
    1. Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. Lancet. 2011;377:956–965. - PubMed
    1. Fazel S, Hayes AJ, Bartellas K, Clerici M, Trestman R. Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:871–881. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Favril L, Indig D, Gear C, Wilhelm K. Mental disorders and risk of suicide attempt in prisoners. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00127-020-01851-7. published online March 6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hawton K, Linsell L, Adeniji T, Sariaslan A, Fazel S. Self-harm in prisons in England and Wales: an epidemiological study of prevalence, risk factors, clustering, and subsequent suicide. Lancet. 2014;383:1147–1154. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms