Crossroads ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ

Hospital-based interventions for self-harm in LMIC LIC 2005

8 min read

==This is an unedited automated output from feynman-health-fork; I have added PUBMED & HPSR SKILL; being done for testing purposes and not for publication/submission elsewhere.==

Hospital-Based Interventions for Self-Harm in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Evidence Around 2005

Date: 2005–2008

Summary

Around 2005, what was known about hospital-based interventions for self-harm (suicide attempts) in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC) came primarily from WHO-coordinated multisite studies that established baseline epidemiology and tested feasibility of brief interventions. The state of evidence showed:

  1. High burden of attempted suicide in emergency departments but minimal follow-up care infrastructure
  2. Self-poisoning dominated as the method, often using pesticides in agricultural regions
  3. Very limited referral and psychiatric assessment in most settings
  4. Early success of a low-cost brief intervention combining education and follow-up contact

Key Findings from 2005–2008 Research

1. Epidemiology of Suicide Attempts (Bertolote et al., 2005)

Study Design:
Multicenter descriptive study across 8 sites in LIC/LMIC (Brazil, India, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Vietnam, Iran, Estonia, China) published in Psychological Medicine (35:10, 2005).

Methods:

  • 45-minute structured interview with suicide attempters in emergency departments after medical stabilization
  • Conducted by trained health personnel
  • Multiple countries and cultural contexts

Key Findings:

  • Self-poisoning was the predominant method across all 8 sites
  • Pesticides played a particularly large role in:
    • Yuncheng, China: 71.6% of females, 61.5% of males
    • Colombo, Sri Lanka: 43.2% of males, 19.6% of females
    • Chennai, India: 33.8% of males, 23.8% of females
  • Severity was high in some settings: >65% of attempts in Yuncheng and Chennai resulted in “danger to life”
  • Follow-up care was minimal: In 4 of 8 sites, less than one-third of patients received any type of referral for follow-up evaluation or care

Conclusions:

“The care of patients who attempt suicide needs to include routine psychiatric and psychosocial assessment and systematic referral to professional services after discharge.”

The authors recommended:

  • Immediate prevention action targeting self-poisoning (the most common method)
  • Regulation and restriction of access to drugs, pesticides, and toxic substances (intersectoral approach: health, agriculture, education, justice)
  • Mandatory psychiatric and psychosocial assessment
  • Systematic referral pathways after discharge

2. Effectiveness of Brief Intervention and Contact (BIC) for Suicide Mortality (Bertolote et al., 2008)

Study: WHO SUPRE-MISS (Multisite Intervention Study on Suicidal Behaviors)

Published: Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86:703–709 (2008)

Study Design:
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) across 5 LIC/LMIC sites (Campinas, Brazil; Chennai, India; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Karaj, Iran; Yuncheng, China).

Methods:

  • 1,867 suicide attempters enrolled in emergency departments
  • Recruited: January 2002 – October 2005
  • Random assignment:
    • 922 (49.4%) to Brief Intervention and Contact (BIC) group
    • 945 (50.6%) to Treatment As Usual (TAU) control group
  • Follow-up: 18 months
  • Completion rate: 91%

The BIC Intervention:

  • Patient education session (brief, delivered after medical stabilization)
  • Systematic follow-up contacts (via phone or visit)
  • Low resource intensity; deliverable in settings with limited mental health infrastructure

Primary Outcome: Suicide Mortality

GroupDeaths by SuicideProportion
BIC2 deaths0.2%
TAU21 deaths2.2%
Chi-square13.83p < 0.001

Result:

“Significantly fewer deaths from suicide occurred in the BIC than in the treatment-as-usual group.”

This represents an 11-fold reduction in suicide mortality (2.2% → 0.2%), a striking and clinically meaningful difference.

Conclusion:

“This low-cost brief intervention may be an important part of suicide prevention programmes for underresourced low- and middle-income countries.”

Important caveat: 91% retention suggests robust engagement and feasibility in these settings.

3. Repetition of Suicide Attempts: Secondary Outcomes (Fleischmann et al., 2010)

Published: Crisis 34(2) (2010) — same cohort as 2008 study

Methods:

  • Repeated suicide attempts over 18 months following the index attempt identified by follow-up calls or visits

Key Finding:

  • Proportion with repeat attempts was similar in both groups:
    • BIC: 7.6%
    • TAU: 7.5%
    • χ² = 0.013, p = 0.909

Interpretation:
While BIC reduced suicide mortality, it did not reduce the rate of repeated suicide attempts. This suggests:

  1. Some attempters who repeated their attempt did not die by suicide
  2. The intervention may have changed the lethality or outcome of repeated attempts without preventing them entirely
  3. Different mechanisms may be involved in preventing death vs. preventing re-attempt

Note: There were differences across the five sites, suggesting context-specific factors influenced outcomes.

State of Hospital Services for Self-Harm in LIC/LMIC (2005)

What Existed:

  1. Emergency departments in general hospitals could provide acute medical care (e.g., treating poisoning)
  2. Basic capacity to identify suicide attempters through medical staff observation
  3. Ability to conduct structured interviews after medical stabilization (demonstrated feasibility)

What Was Absent or Limited:

  1. Psychiatric assessment: In 4 of 8 sites, >66% of attempters received no psychiatric referral
  2. Psychosocial services: Nearly absent in many settings
  3. Trained mental health specialists: Not accessible to emergency departments in most LIC/LMIC sites
  4. Follow-up systems: No formal mechanisms to track or recall discharged attempters
  5. Safety planning or crisis protocols: Not systematically implemented
  6. Poison access restrictions: Inadequate regulation of pesticides and medications

Treatment Approaches Being Tested (2005–2008)

The “Brief Intervention and Contact” Model:

Components:

  • Education: Information session with the attempter about suicide risk and protective factors
  • Contact: Periodic telephone or in-person follow-up (schedule and frequency not fully specified in abstracts)
  • Feasibility: Deliverable by trained health workers; low cost

Why This Was Significant:

  • Did not require specialist psychiatrists or complex infrastructure
  • Was scalable to resource-poor settings
  • Showed mortality benefit in multisite RCT
  • Cost was minimal compared to standard psychiatric hospitalization or intensive psychotherapy

Other Approaches Mentioned (from later review literature):

  • Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT): Tested in later studies; showed promise for reducing suicidal ideation but not always attempt repetition
  • Problem-solving counseling: Used in some studies
  • Postcard contact: Simple low-tech follow-up (studied in later work, e.g., Iran)
  • Telephone follow-up: Variable effectiveness

Key Limitations in the Evidence (2005)

  1. Limited number of RCTs: Only the BIC trial (Bertolote et al., 2008) provided strong evidence for a specific intervention in LIC/LMIC
  2. Cultural diversity without adaptation: The same BIC approach was used across very different cultural contexts; no formal cultural adaptation studies
  3. No studies on structural factors: Limited evidence on the impact of restricting access to lethal means (pesticides, medications)
  4. Psychiatric comorbidity underexplored: Few details on depression, mental illness, and treatment availability
  5. Gender differences: Noted in patterns but not deeply analyzed
  6. Task-sharing not yet evaluated: Unclear which interventions could be delivered by non-specialist health workers vs. requiring mental health professionals

The 2005 Policy Implications

For Hospital Services:

  • Systematic psychiatric and psychosocial assessment should be routine at emergency discharge
  • Formal referral pathways must be established
  • Brief follow-up contact should be built into discharge protocols

For Countries:

  • Regulatory action on pesticide and medication access (supported by epidemiologic evidence of poisoning rates)
  • Intersectoral coordination among health, agriculture, and justice sectors
  • Training of emergency department staff to identify and manage suicide attempters
  • Low-cost follow-up systems (letter, postcard, or phone contact) should be institutionalized

Comparison: What Changed by 2010–2021

A 2021 systematic review (Aggarwal et al.) synthesized 13 studies (9 RCTs) on psychosocial interventions for self-harm in LIC/LMIC:

Emerging Evidence:

  • CBT showed promise for reducing suicidal ideation in some contexts
  • Postcard contact (studied in Iran) reduced suicide behaviors at 12-month follow-up
  • Problem-solving interventions showed mixed results
  • Volunteer mentorship was explored but not widely tested

Persistent Gaps:

  • High attrition in psychotherapy trials (>25% in many studies)
  • Limited benefit of non-specialist delivery (contrary to hoped-for task-shifting potential)
  • Phone contact alone showed variable effectiveness
  • Very few culturally adapted interventions
  • Scalability concerns: Most interventions were pilot studies in small samples

Sources

  1. Bertolote, J. M., De Leo, D., Botega, N., Phillips, M., Sisask, M., Vijayakumar, L., … & Wasserman, D. (2005). Characteristics of attempted suicides seen in emergency-care settings of general hospitals in eight low- and middle-income countries. Psychological Medicine, 35(10), 1467–1474. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16164770/

  2. Bertolote, J. M., Wasserman, D., De Leo, D., Bolhari, J., Botega, N. J., De Silva, D., … & Värnik, A. (2008). Effectiveness of brief intervention and contact for suicide attempters: a randomized controlled trial in five countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(9), 703–709. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18797646/

    • DOI: 10.2471/blt.07.046995
    • PMCID: PMC2649494

  3. Fleischmann, A., Bertolote, J. M., De Leo, D., Bolhari, J., Botega, N. J., De Silva, D., … & Wasserman, D. (2010). Repetition of suicide attempts: data from emergency care settings in five culturally different low- and middle-income countries participating in the WHO SUPRE-MISS Study. Crisis, 31(2), 89–97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20801749/

  4. Aggarwal, S., Patton, G., Berk, M., & Patel, V. (2021). Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and theory of change. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56, 1729–1750. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-020-02005-5

Key Takeaway

In 2005, hospital-based interventions for self-harm in LIC/LMIC were minimal and inconsistent. The major innovation of the mid-2000s was demonstrating that even a simple, brief, low-cost intervention (patient education + follow-up contact) could significantly reduce suicide mortality in resource-limited settings. However, the intervention did not prevent re-attempts, and questions about scalability, cultural fit, and which components were essential remained unanswered. The field has since moved toward testing task-shared, community-based, and digitally-supported approaches, but implementation at scale remains a challenge.

Graph View

Backlinks