We conducted a rapid review and quantitative summary of meta-analyses that have examined interventions which can be used by individuals during quarantine and social distancing to manage anxiety, depression, stress, and subjective well-being. A literature search yielded 34 meta-analyses (total number of studies k = 1,390, n = 145,744) that were summarized. Overall, self-guided interventions showed small to medium effects in comparison to control groups. In particular, self-guided therapeutic approaches (including cognitive-behavioral, mindfulness, and acceptance-based interventions), selected positive psychology interventions, and multi-component and activity-based interventions (music, physical exercise) showed promising evidence for effectiveness. Overall, self-guided interventions on average did not show the same degree of effectiveness as traditional guided individual or group therapies. There was no consistent evidence of dose effects, baseline differences, and differential effectiveness of eHealth interventions. More research on the effectiveness of interventions in diverse cultural settings is needed.

Background: Self-harm is a clinically relevant and prevalent behaviour which peaks in adolescence. Given the high prevalence of self-harm, the high levels of psychiatric comorbidity, and its role as a risk factor for suicide, delivering evidence-based care is critical. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on treating self-harm in adolescents (12-19 years) published in the last 20 years, identifying 25 randomised controlled trials. We calculated the effect of treatment interventions relative to active control conditions in reducing self-harm, suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Results: Overall, treatment interventions fared slightly better than active controls in decreasing self-harm (d = 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.22, p = .004), suicidal ideation (d = 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.50, p = .001) and depressive symptoms (d = 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.38, p = .006). Subgroup analysis of specific therapies revealed moderate effects of DBT-A in reducing self-harm (d = 0.51, 95% CI 0.18-0.85, p = .002) and suicidal ideation (d = 0.48, 95% CI 0.17-0.80, p = .003), as well as moderate effects of family-centred therapy in the treating suicidal ideation (d = 0.58, 95% CI 0.01-1.15, p = .049).

No abstract

Background Given the widespread nature and clinical consequences of self-harm and suicidal ideation among adolescents, establishing the efficacy of developmentally appropriate treatments that reduce both self-harm and suicidal ideation in the context of broader adolescent psychopathology is critical. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Adolescents (DBT-A) literature on treating self-injury in adolescents (12–19 years). We searched for eligible trials and treatment evaluations published prior to July 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials. Twenty-one studies were identified [five randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), three controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and 13 pre-post evaluations]. We extracted data for predefined primary (self-harm, suicidal ideation) and secondary outcomes (borderline personality symptoms; BPD) and calculated treatment effects for RCTs/CCTs and pre-post evaluations. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with OSF: osf.io/v83e7. Results Overall, the studies comprised 1673 adolescents. Compared to control groups, DBT-A showed small to moderate effects for reducing self-harm (g = −0.44; 95% CI −0.81 to −0.07) and suicidal ideation (g = −0.31, 95% CI −0.52 to −0.09). Pre-post evaluations suggested large effects for all outcomes (self-harm: g = −0.98, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.81; suicidal ideation: g = −1.16, 95% CI −1.51 to −0.80; BPD symptoms: g = −0.97, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.63). Conclusions DBT-A appears to be a valuable treatment in reducing both adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation. However, evidence that DBT-A reduces BPD symptoms was only found in pre-post evaluations.

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), which involves deliberate damage to body tissue without suicidal intent, has long been a concern for schools and school staff. Secondary schools are an ideal setting in which to identify, and appropriately refer, students who self-injure as well as implement evidence-based prevention and early intervention programs. However, in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, schools have been closed and students sent home to learn online. This may result in the exacerbation of existing anxieties and pose several new stressors that cumulatively may increase risk of NSSI. In this article, we draw on recent research and our collective experience working with schools, as well as digital mental health, to outline some of these potential stressors and offer resources for school staff to help students who are engaging in or at risk of NSSI.