Back

Investigating the impact of lived experience stories on self-harm, mood, and help-seeking intentions: an experimental study

Ferrar, J.; Winstone, L.; Penton-Voak, I.; Biddle, L.; Moran, P.; Grace, L.; Mars, B.

2024-04-29 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2024.04.25.24306405 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the psychological impact of variations in help-seeking messages contained in lived experience stories about self-harm. MethodIn an online experiment, individuals with a recent history of self-harm, were randomised to read stories that either mentioned: i) self-help strategies, ii) seeking help from informal and formal sources, or iii) did not mention help-seeking. Help-seeking intentions, mood, entrapment, and expectations of future self-harm was measured, and participants provided feedback on the stories. ResultsThere was limited evidence for an effect of story type on future help-seeking intentions and stronger evidence for an effect of story type on negative affect. Participants in the "Self-help" condition reported lower negative affect after reading the stories compared to participants in the "No help" condition (Mean difference = -3.97, 95% CI -7.72 to -0.22, p = .04) and the "Informal/formal" help condition (Mean difference = -3.70, 95% CI -7.55 to 0.14, p =.06). A key criticism of the stories was that they were unrelatable, but this sentiment was less prevalent among those in the "No help" condition. Key positives were that the stories included a realistic but hopeful outlook of recovery (less prevalent in the "Informal/formal help" condition) and were supportive (less prevalent in the "No help" condition). ConclusionWhile the inclusion of self-help strategies in a lived experience story reduced its impact on negative affect, the inclusion of self-help strategies or seeking help from others did not encourage future help-seeking intentions. Making stories relatable, authentic, and providing multiple strategies for support might be key to encourage help-seeking, but more research is needed.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.