A survey within a defined area of the north-east of England (population of approximately 1.25 million) generated a number of patients with current or past erotomanic phenomenology. A casenote study was carried out on the 11 patients identified. Cases were classified in accordance with DSM-111-R criteria and an assessment was made of the extent to which each case fulfilled specific criteria for primary and secondary erotomania, as defined by previous authors. The response to treatment of both psychiatric syndrome and erotomanic phenomenology is described for each case. The findings are discussed in relation to the current debate regarding the status of de Clerabault's syndrome and delusional disorder (erotomanic type) as nosological entities.

Sixty-one consecutive patients who presented following an episode of deliberate self-harm (DSH) were assessed on a number of variables, including measures of hopelessness and hostility. Attempts were made to follow all of the patients. Those who were known to have had a further episode of DSH had significantly higher levels of hopelessness and intropunitive hostility after the index episode than those who did not repeat. The question of vulnerability to DSH is discussed as well as the possibility of using measures of hopelessness and intropunitive hostility to identify those at greater risk of repetition.

SYNOPSISSixty-four in-patient cases of deliberate non-fatal self-poisoning were compared for psychosocial problems in a case-control study with a similar number of individually matched community controls. A strongly significant association was found between unemployment and self-poisoning. Further analysis revealed no firm evidence to support the hypotheses that unemployment was causally related to self-poisoning in an indirect manner or that it increased the vulnerability of individuals who self-poison to other stressful life events and difficulties. It is concluded that a possible explanation is that some third factor independently increases the risk of both unemployment and self-poisoning, giving rise to a non-causal relationship between these last two variables.

Kreitman (1979) reported that up to one-half of patients given out-patient appointments one week after an episode of deliberate self-harm (DSH) fail to attend, and gave a number of possible explanations for this. Firstly, parasuicide is often the result of a crisis which may have resolved (albeit temporarily) by the end of a further week. Secondly, someone in a state of heightened tension may find one week too long to wait, and may resort to other strategies to deal with his problems. Thirdly, many parasuicides may find a psychiatric label unacceptable in the context of their problems, and fourthly, an appoint ment made for a fixed day and a fixed hour may not fit the need for immediate action which the subjects subculture had inculcated in him as a habit pattern. Morgan et al (1976) reported that up to 40% of their DSH patients either did not attend any appointment or failed to complete their treatment. Two possible explanations for this were that they either felt that they did not need psychiatric treatment, or else believed that psychiatric treatment was not an answer to their problems. Kessel and Lee (1962), probably in line with much psychiatric practice, did not give a follow-up appointment to 40% of their self-poisoners; this was for two reasons. Firstly, these patients did not have a problem for which psychiatric treatment was appropriate and secondly, many of these patients had an entrenched personality disorder, which made it unlikely that psychiatric intervention would be beneficial.