Favril · The lancet. Psychiatry 2020 · systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies · n=35 studies (663,735 prisoners)

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

PubMed 32711709 · doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30190-5 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Authors searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) through October 31, 2019, for observational studies evaluating risk factors for self-harm in adult general prison populations compared to prisoners without self-harm. Studies using qualitative or ecological designs, lifetime-only measures, or selected non-general prison samples were excluded. Effect sizes were pooled as odds ratios (OR) using random-effects models for 40 risk factors present in at least three distinct samples. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

What was found

Thirty-five independent studies across 20 countries were included, covering 663,735 prisoners (24,978 [3.8%] self-harmed in prison). The strongest associations with in-prison self-harm were: - Current or recent suicidal ideation: OR 13.8 (95% CI 8.6–22.1; I² = 49%) - Major depression: OR 9.3 (95% CI 2.9–29.5; I² = 91%) - Borderline personality disorder: OR 9.2 (95% CI 3.7–22.5; I² = 81%) - Lifetime history of suicidal ideation: OR 8.9 (95% CI 6.1–13.0; I² = 56%) - Any current psychiatric diagnosis: OR 8.1 (95% CI 7.0–9.4; I² = 0%) - Previous self-harm: OR 6.6 (95% CI 5.3–8.3; I² = 55%) - Solitary confinement: OR 5.6 (95% CI 2.7–11.6; I² = 98%) - Disciplinary infractions: OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2–9.7; I² = 99%) - Physical or sexual victimisation in prison: OR 3.2 (95% CI 2.1–4.8; I² = 44%) Sociodemographic factors (OR 1.5–2.5) and criminological factors (OR 1.8–2.3) were only modestly associated.

Why it matters

This review quantifies that clinical psychiatric factors and custodial environment conditions (e.g., solitary confinement and victimization) are substantially stronger predictors of in-prison self-harm than static sociodemographic or criminal justice variables.

Limits

All included studies were observational, preventing causal inference. Marked statistical heterogeneity was present for several critical risk factors, including solitary confinement (I² = 98%), disciplinary infractions (I² = 99%), and major depression (I² = 91%). Institutional environments and definitions of self-harm varied across 20 countries.

Cited by