Original Research May 2026
The Effect of a Nationwide Aftercare Program for Self-Harm Presentations on the Risk of Self-Harm Repetition and Suicide: A Cohort Study
Clinical Guide

How to Respond to Repeat Self-Harm During Aftercare Follow-Up

How should clinicians interpret and respond to repeat self-harm presentations that occur during aftercare?

Repeat self-harm is common after a hospital-treated self-harm episode, and it may still occur in patients receiving follow-up care. This guide applies when a patient re-presents with self-harm during or after aftercare and addresses how the study's findings should shape clinical interpretation.

  1. Expect repeat presentation to remain clinically common

    Recognize that repeat self-harm remained frequent in this cohort despite aftercare, with 19.1% of patients repeating self-harm during a mean follow-up of 2.8 years. This means recurrence should be anticipated as part of ongoing risk management rather than treated as an unusual event.

  2. Do not equate repeat self-harm with aftercare failure

    The study found that aftercare was associated with a 17% increase in repeat self-harm hospital presentation after adjustment, while also being associated with a 20% decrease in suicide risk. The authors explicitly suggest that increased repetition may reflect greater help-seeking and service engagement during crises rather than simple worsening caused by the intervention.

  3. Use the repeat presentation as a re-engagement opportunity

    Interpret a new hospital-presenting self-harm episode during follow-up as a point to re-establish contact and continue intervention. The article's clinical implication is that repeat presentations should be treated as opportunities for intervention rather than as indicators that follow-up has failed.

  4. Escalate attention in higher-risk subgroups

    Give particular attention to patients younger than 65 years and those with a history of psychiatric disorders, because the association between aftercare and repeat self-harm was more marked in these groups. For patients with prior psychiatric disorders, the reported hazard ratio for repeat self-harm was 1.26, indicating a need for more tailored and intensive intervention in this subgroup.

  5. Sustain suicide-focused follow-up despite recurrence

    Do not stop outreach because a patient repeats self-harm, since the overall program was still associated with lower suicide risk. This is especially important in younger patients aged 10 to 24 years, in whom the reduction in suicide risk associated with aftercare was most marked, with a hazard ratio of 0.64.

Clinical Considerations

  • The increase in repeat self-harm observed in the study was limited to hospital-presenting episodes and may partly reflect increased detection or help-seeking rather than a true increase in all self-harm behavior.
  • The study could not determine the mechanism behind increased repeat hospital presentation, and the authors noted that shifts toward less lethal methods or greater trust in services may have contributed.
  • Because the study was observational, clinicians should not assume that aftercare itself directly caused either the increase in repeat self-harm presentation or the decrease in suicide.
  • Patients with psychiatric disorders may have more severe and persistent problems, so standard aftercare may be insufficient for some high-risk individuals.

Bottom Line

When self-harm recurs during follow-up, treat the repeat presentation as a critical chance to intensify engagement and support, not as proof that aftercare has failed.

Read full article
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. (PPP) makes no warranties about the accuracy or completeness of any information published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry or other PPP materials, and disclaims liability for any use or non-use of that information. Clinicians should not rely solely on these materials and should exercise their own professional judgment when making patient care decisions on an individualized basis.