How do people conceptualize self-harm recovery and what helps in adolescence, young and middle adulthood? A qualitative meta-synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Self-harm can be understood as any behavior individuals use to harm themselves, irrespective of motive. Evidence has extensively examined the epidemiology and function of self-harm to the individual, but less is known about the subjective processes underpinning recovery. Such insights could inform therapeutic interventions to better support individuals. The present aim was to synthesize qualitative themes from eligible literature to identify how adolescents, young adults, and those in middle adulthood conceptualize self-harm recovery and the factors impacting this process. METHODS: Eleven studies were identified from a systematic search of five electronic research databases: PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, Global Health, and CINAHL. Studies were critically appraised using an adapted Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool for qualitative research. A meta-synthesis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis to generate themes across the included studies. RESULTS: Themes depicted recovery as a multidimensional, nonlinear, and subjective process, characterized by a "push and pull" between states of (re-)engagement and cessation/reduction. Transition between these states was influenced by intrapersonal and interpersonal factors which were embedded in a wider milieu of the meaning of self-harm to the individual. CONCLUSION: Contemporary ideas of symptom eradication as the only marker of complete recovery may hinder individuals in the long-term, presenting an obstacle both to quality of life and therapeutic progress. Movement away from self-harm recovery as a uniform or singular phenomenon could enhance person-centered care.

Evaluation of a new online cognitive remediation therapy (CIRCuiTSTM ) training for mental health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive remediation (CR) improves cognition and aids recovery in people with psychosis. An active therapist provides increased benefit, but CR training for therapists is not routinely available, so CR has limited scalability. This study describes the development and evaluation of the first online CR therapist training programme. METHODS: An online CR training, based on expert and novice therapist consultations, was developed, and then pilot tested with novice trainees and changes made to produce the evaluation version. Feasibility, acceptability, and training benefits were assessed in a group of naïve UK NHS mental health professionals. Training engagement with a group of clinicians who accessed the programme for professional development was compared to those who paid fees. RESULTS: Most mental health professionals finished training and passed the knowledge test, indicating that training enhanced clinicians' knowledge. Fee-paying trainees had significantly faster completion times and a higher proportion finished in the recommended time. Those who were successful at passing the knowledge questionnaire had significantly fewer years in practice. The majority were satisfied with the programme, felt they had made considerable progress and that training would allow them to begin practicing CR, and would recommend the training to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: This online CR training programme was feasible, acceptable to participants and showed benefits for clinicians. It improved knowledge even in the most junior of staff who have had less time to develop clinical know-how.