BPD perceptions of interventions to prevent self-harm

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    How do individuals who self-identify as having Borderline Personality Disorder [BPD] symptomatology perceive interventions to prevent self-harm behaviours?

  • IRAS ID

    159148

  • Contact name

    Julia Noble

  • Contact email

    julia.noble@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    The University of Manchester

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 6 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Research has shown a strong association between repetitive self-harm behaviour and Borderline Personality Disorder [BPD] (APA, 1994; Lieb, Zanarini, Schmahl, Linehan & Bohus, 2004). Approximately 10% of individuals will complete suicide (McGlashan,1986; Paris, 2002; Stone, 1993) and between 50-80% will self-harm (Oumaya et al., 2008).

    One approach of potentially reducing the risks associated with these individuals may be through a comprehensive understanding of their cognitive appraisals of the current interventions to prevent self-harm behaviours. Previous research has investigated individuals with BPD perceptions of their disorder (Horn, Johnstone, & Brooke, 2007; Miller, 1994; Nehls, 1999), but no research exists on their perceptions' of interventions aimed at preventing these high-risk behaviours. Gaining their perspective may be the first step in understanding why interventions are unsuccessful or not, and why. This study aims to consider the perceptions of interventions to prevent self-harm from the perspective of individuals who self-harm and who self-identify as having BPD symptomatology.

    A qualitative design will be utilised within this research. Individuals who meet inclusion criteria will be invited to take part in an individual semi­-structured interview. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed, and then analysed to identify a theory which captures their experience of interventions to prevent self-harm.

  • REC name

    North West - Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    15/NW/0046

  • Date of REC Opinion

    22 Jan 2015

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion