Abstract
Background Many people who have self-harmed prefer informal sources of support, or support from those with lived experience. However, little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people who have self-harmed, and what might be the risks of peer support interventions in non-clinical settings.
Objectives The aims of this review are to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and potential risks of peer support for self-harm, and how these risks might be mitigated.
Methods We searched two bibliographic databases and grey literature for papers published since 2000. We included peer support for self-harm that occurred in voluntary sector organisations, providing one-to-one or group support, or via moderated online peer support forums. We excluded peer support within clinical settings, peer support provided by relatives or friends who self-harm, or peer support from unmoderated online forums. Quality appraisal was conducted on included papers, and study findings were summarised using a narrative synthesis.
Results Ten papers met the inclusion criteria for this review, and most (n=8) were conducted in the United Kingdom. Eight of the papers focused on peer support that was delivered through online mediums and two examined face-to-face self-harm recovery/support groups. Limited conclusions about the effectiveness of peer support interventions for self-harm can be made, as we found no studies comparing this to other treatments or a control group. Peer support for self-harm was found to be acceptable and was viewed as having a range of benefits including a reduction of loneliness, a sense of community and empowerment, improvements in interpersonal skills, and access to information and support. The most commonly perceived risk associated with peer support for self-harm was the potential for triggering self-harm. Other potential risks identified were being re-traumatised by listening to other people’s stories, not having the knowledge or skills to help others, and misunderstandings or disagreements with other peers/group members.
Conclusions Our findings highlighted a range of benefits of being part of a group with very specific shared experiences. This justifies investment in the provision of such resources, supported by safeguards to mitigate the potential risks from peer support interventions. Suggestions include organisations using professional facilitators for groups, including trigger warnings for online forums, and providing regular supervision and training so that peers are prepared and feel confident to support vulnerable people whilst maintaining their own emotional health.
Competing Interest Statement
This project was commissioned by two of the authors (MI and EB) on behalf of Samaritans and the paper is based on a tendered bid for the Samaritans project. MI and EB took an active part in devising the search strategy and commenting on manuscript drafts.
Clinical Trial
This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021235441)
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=235441
Funding Statement
This project was commissioned by two of the authors (MI and EB) on behalf of Samaritans and the paper is based on a tendered bid for the Samaritans project.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The systematic review did not require ethical approval
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
An example of our search strategy is provided in the supplementary material