Identification of Risk Factors for Self‐Injurious Behavior in Male Prisoners*

Abstract

Male prisoners with (n = 132) and without (n = 132) histories of engaging in self-injurious behavior (SIB) were matched on conviction prefix and custody level. Conditional logistic regression revealed that a combination of risk factors from domains defined by developmental, offense history, mental health, and institutional functioning factors correctly classified 93% of the prisoners in the sample (ROC AUC = 0.89, S.E. = 0.005, p < 0.0001). Model specificity was 92.6% and sensitivity was 95.3%. False positive and false negative rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively. Implications for the assessment of prisoners at risk for SIB as well as suggested future directions for SIB prisoner research are discussed.

Dual harm: an exploration of the presence and characteristics for dual violence and self-harm behaviour in prison

“…Furthermore, it is suggested that these dual-risk prisoners may be a distinct group from those engaging solely in one behaviour type, since they engage in a broader range of incidents in prison and at a far higher rate than sole behaviour prisoners. It is likely that dual behaviour prisoners will receive higher levels of punishment due this higher level of refraction, which may also result in greater experience of segregation than assault only offenders, which would be in line with findings from the USA (Lanes et al, 2009). Given the known risks of isolation on self-destructive behaviour (Humber et al, 2013;PPO, 2015), further consideration should be given within prisons to the integration of risk management approaches for refractory prisoners as per best practice in health settings (Department of Dual Harm: An exploration of the presence and characteristics for dual violence and selfharm behaviour in prison.…”

Predictors of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and self-harm without lethal intent in a community corrections sample

“…Self-injurious behavior is repetitious and not generally enacted with suicidal intention, though some definitions in the literature include suicide attempts (Lanes, 2009). Self-injurious behavior most commonly involves cutting the skin (C. Evren, Dalbudak, B. Evren, Cetin, & Durkaya, 2010;Lanes, 2009), but may involve other behaviors such as disembowelment, eye enucleation, degloving, amputation, castration, ingesting substances, inserting or removing objects through orifices or wounds, serious tampering with medical interventions, jumping from high places, asphyxiation, head banging, bone breaking, striking of self, and lack of self care that results in a medical crisis (Fagan et al, 2010;Lanes, 2009).…”

“…Self-injurious behavior most commonly involves cutting the skin (C. Evren, Dalbudak, B. Evren, Cetin, & Durkaya, 2010;Lanes, 2009), but may involve other behaviors such as disembowelment, eye enucleation, degloving, amputation, castration, ingesting substances, inserting or removing objects through orifices or wounds, serious tampering with medical interventions, jumping from high places, asphyxiation, head banging, bone breaking, striking of self, and lack of self care that results in a medical crisis (Fagan et al, 2010;Lanes, 2009). Although the person completing the self-injurious act may deny suicidal intent, accidental death or significant physical injuries are potential, even if unintended, outcomes of their actions (Fagan et al, 2010;Lanes, 2009;Young, Justice, & Erdberg, 2006).…”

Assessing the risk of self-harm in an adult offender population: an incidence cohort study

“…17,18 Although self-harm and suicide attempt may be separated by the motivational intent, this may be irrelevant to the primary care teams and authorities that are charged with dealing with any sort of self-harming behaviour, regardless of the prior motivating factor. This view is supported by Lanes,19 who stated that it is important to note that self-harmers generally distinguish between self-harm and genuine suicidal intent, but this does not qualify as a basis for judging the potential outcome of threatened or enacted self-harm. Despite the motivational and aetiological differences between self-harming and suicide attempts, as the final outcome is likely to be similar in terms of treatment cost and impact, it may make sense, from a public health-care commissioning perspective, to group all self-harm behaviours together, regardless of the intent.…”

“…Self-harm can present a major challenge and place considerable demands on prison health-care systems, 19 the responsibility for which resides with primary care trusts. In 2007, the prison service introduced a care-planning system called ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody, and Teamwork) 43 to improve care for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm.…”