A qualitative study of multiple voices to inform aftercare services for older persons following self-harm.

OBJECTIVES: Self-harm and suicide are closely related in older adults, highlighting the opportunity for Aftercare interventions in targeted suicide prevention. The study aims were to explore strengths and shortfalls of current Aftercare services for older adults from the perspective of key stakeholders and researchers; and inform a set of guiding principles for older persons' Aftercare. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a convenience sample of older people with lived experience of self-harm, clinicians and suicide researchers (n = 22). Interviews were focussed on current practice (strengths and limitations), potential improvements, and identifying the core components of an acceptable Aftercare model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and subjected to a reflexive thematic analysis grounded in interpretive description. RESULTS: Current practice strengths included validation, a person-centred approach and optimising aftercare delivery. Limitations included ageism, practical limitations (lack of service awareness, fragmented service provision, barriers to access, and traumatising approaches), and limited services, funding and training. Overarching themes included anti-ageism; anti-stigma; empowerment and agency; conveying hope; patience and pace; accessible; and finding purpose: connections and meaningful activity. CONCLUSIONS: Older people who have self-harmed have complex, individualised needs. They sit within intersecting systems traversing healthcare, support services, family, and the social environment. Systemic, coordinated Aftercare founded upon core principles of anti-ageism, anti-stigma, partnership, empowerment, accessibility and provision of connections and meaning are needed.

A systematic review of evidence-based aftercare for older adults following self-harm.

OBJECTIVE: Self-harm is closely associated with suicide in older adults and may provide opportunity to intervene to prevent suicide. This study aimed to systematically review recent evidence for three components of aftercare for older adults: (1) referral pathways, (2) assessment tools and safety planning approaches and (3) engagement and intervention strategies. METHODS: Databases PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched from January 2010 to 10 July 2021 by two reviewers. Empirical studies reporting aftercare interventions for older adults (aged 60+) following self-harm (including with suicidal intent) were included. Full text of articles with abstracts meeting inclusion criteria were obtained and independently reviewed by three authors to determine final studies for review. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed level of evidence (Oxford) and quality ratings (Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for quantitative and Attree and Milton checklist for qualitative studies), working independently. RESULTS: Twenty studies were reviewed (15 quantitative; 5 qualitative). Levels of evidence were low (3, 4), and quality ratings of quantitative studies variable, although qualitative studies rated highly. Most studies of referral pathways were observational and demonstrated marked variation with no clear guidelines or imperatives for community psychiatric follow-up. Of four screening tools evaluated, three were suicide-specific and one screened for depression. An evidence-informed approach to safety planning was described using cases. Strategies for aftercare engagement and intervention included two multifaceted approaches, psychotherapy and qualitative insights from older people who self-harmed, carers and clinicians. The qualitative studies identified targets for improved aftercare engagement, focused on individual context, experiences and needs. CONCLUSION: Dedicated older-adult aftercare interventions with a multifaceted, assertive follow-up approach accompanied by systemic change show promise but require further evaluation. Research is needed to explore the utility of needs assessment compared to screening and evaluate efficacy of safety planning and psychotherapeutic approaches.