Abstract
Objective To investigate the psychological impact of variations in help-seeking messages contained in lived experience stories about self-harm.
Method In 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.
Results There 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).
Conclusion While 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the University of Bristol School of Psychological Science Research Ethics Committee (REF: 10504). The study was conducted according to the revised Declaration of Helinski (2013) and the 1996 (ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Open access statement and link to data.bris repository to be added on manuscript upon acceptance.
