No abstract

This article reviews the international literature of the last two decades on self-injurious behaviour in prisons and jails and introduces the risk factors associated with this behaviour. Studies from a variety of countries investigated different samples (e.g. in jails or prisons; female or male inmates). We only chose those studies using a control group of inmates without self-injurious behaviour. The findings on potential risk factors for self-injurious behaviour are largely contradictory because of the differences in sample selection and dependent variables (deliberate self-harm without suicidal intent vs. suicide attempts). We also discuss some methodological problems in predicting self-injurious behaviour. Defining the subjectThe results of studies on risk factors for self-injurious behaviour can vary greatly depending on the type of self-injurious behaviour being examined (Borrill et al., 2003;Daigle, 2004;Kerkhof & Bernasco, 1990). Thus, the selection and operational definition of the dependent variable(s) are two of the most basic and decisive steps in designing such a study. In this regard, studies have investigated a wide range of phenomena. Ivanoff (1989) called the definitions idiosyncratic. Malone et al. (1995) found inconsistencies in the definition of suicide attempts not only in the cases they examined, but also in the literature. The definitions included behaviours that ranged from suicidal ideation (i.e. no acting-out behaviour in the real sense; Daigle, 2004) to self-harming behaviour with various degrees of lethality and motives, to acts that might be called suicide attempts because the inmates had relatively strong desires to die or had inflicted considerable harm on themselves. In conceptualizing self-injurious behaviour in custody, some authors, on the one hand, use varying terms such as self-harm, suicide attempt, or parasuicide interchangeably

No abstract

No abstract

Repair and protection systems can have a positive impact on sustainability by prolonging the life of a structure and reducing the amount of new construction works. Over recent years, new products and technologies for use as concrete repair mortars and protective coatings, have been developed and launched on the market with lower environmental footprints than their traditional counterparts. To help visualise the environmental impact of these new technologies and products with improved environmental footprints, this paper will use a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of a repair project in Johannesburg, South Africa, which was completed in 2021. Two different scenarios will be compared and assessed – the first, is an existing product range for concrete repair and protection works that was used on the project, and the second is an alternative solution using the new and more sustainable technologies-based product range. This paper will provide an example of the positive environmental impact for such asset owners, by using more sustainable concrete repair and protection materials, by focusing on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Abiotic Depletion Potential fossil (ADP fossil) indicators.