2004
DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200401000-00017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reasons for Deliberate Self-Harm: Comparison of Self-Poisoners and Self-Cutters in a Community Sample of Adolescents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

20
194
2
18

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 268 publications
(236 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
20
194
2
18
Order By: Relevance
“…This is potentially problematic as different methods and frequencies of NSSI have been related to different psychological and environmental factors (Rodham, Hawton, & Evans, 2004). However, with a sample size of less than 1000, we would not have had sufficient power for mediation/moderation analyses if we had split our primary outcome variable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is potentially problematic as different methods and frequencies of NSSI have been related to different psychological and environmental factors (Rodham, Hawton, & Evans, 2004). However, with a sample size of less than 1000, we would not have had sufficient power for mediation/moderation analyses if we had split our primary outcome variable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…cit.). However, a number of authors [20,39] have identified differences regarding the motivational aspects between male and female self-injurers in school and clinical studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…self-cutters may be undertaking this behaviour to release tension, whereas those who overdose for example may be more motivated by thoughts of death (Rodham et al, 2004). However, recent cohort analysis indicates that many individuals switch self-harm methods in subsequent episodes, and so division of participants by methods alone for prediction of repetition may not be appropriate (Owens et al, 2015).…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Systematic Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%