Rosiel Elwyn

Background
Self-harm and suicidal behaviours in children are growing public health issues, however, have received comparatively less attention and research than in other age groups. This gap highlights the need for effective ways to identify and assess these behaviours in children aged 12 years and under to support prevention and intervention efforts.

Objective
This study describes the co-design development of an innovative assessment tool - the Codesigned Assessment Tool of Child Self-Harm and Suicidal Behaviours (CATCH-HARMS) - designed to identify and assess self-harm and suicidal behaviours in children aged 12 years and under.

Methods
We co-designed an assessment tool that seeks to identify, assess and understand early indicators, experiences and related factors behind self-harm and suicidal behaviours in children. Adults in the group consisted of those with lived experience (LE) of self-harm/suicidal behaviour from their own childhood (<12 years of age), parents/carers of children with LE of childhood self-harm and suicidal behaviours and clinicians/academics with expertise in developmental and clinical psychology.

Outcome
A novel 28-item tool was developed to assess child self-harm and suicidal behaviours, to inform early intervention. The co-design process increased capacity for creative solutions and supports practical utility and acceptance of the assessment in real-world contexts.

Translating research into plain language is key to ensuring it has a real-world impact. When findings are communicated simply, without unnecessary jargon, they are easier to understand. If research is understandable, it is more likely to be used in policy or practice, rather than just read by other researchers. The guide below has been developed in collaboration with people with
lived and living experience of suicide and Roses in the Ocean to support people to communicate research in plain language.

Psychiatry combines clinical expertise with substantial institutional authority over diagnosis, treatment access, coercion, clinical records and the credibility assigned to people receiving care. This Essay examines how that authority can impede learning from recurrent warnings across professional misconduct, coercive care, diagnostic practices and iatrogenic harm. We propose institutional non-learning as a cross-cutting problem: professional interpretation can shape whose testimony is believed, which harms are measured, how events are recorded and whether reform is evaluated. Drawing on epistemic injustice, psychiatric survivor research, treatment-safety research, publication and outcome-reporting bias, and empirical studies of diagnostic bias, we develop a framework for epistemic reciprocity and accountability. It distinguishes occurrence from prevalence, recognises that treatment risk varies across populations and contexts, separates benefit from safety, applies reflexive scrutiny across clinical, academic and lived experience expertise, and extends representativeness to both research participants and the published evidence base. We use ignorance culture, exclusion culture, defensiveness and diagnostic weaponisation to describe recurring institutional functions. A responsibility culture requires independent scrutiny, prospective harm surveillance, lived experience governance, remedy and redress, and publicly evaluable evidence that practice has changed and safety has improved.

Premature discontinuation from eating disorder (ED) treatment is commonly interpreted through adherence, motivation, ambivalence, treatment fit, or symptom change. Wade and Schmidt make an important contribution by identifying seven strategies intended to improve retention and by moving beyond explanations located solely within the patient. They explicitly frame retention as a route through which people may obtain greater therapeutic benefit. This commentary argues that continued participation does not, by itself, establish benefit, safety, acceptability, treatment quality, or recovery. Some discontinuation may reflect treatment non-response or circumstances unrelated to care. In other cases, it may communicate poor treatment fit, coercion, relational rupture, cultural or identity-related misattunement, or iatrogenic harm. These possibilities cannot be distinguished reliably when adverse effects are poorly defined, inconsistently monitored, and inadequately reported, or when patient accounts of iatrogenic harm are discounted. We propose an expanded framework in which retention is evaluated alongside collaboratively defined benefit, treatment safety, reasons for staying and leaving, and patient-reported experiences during treatment and follow-up. Mixed-methods research, informed consent about potential negative effects, repeated confidential feedback, repair-oriented responses to reported harm, and lived experience-led co-production are required to determine whether care is safe and worth continuing. Retention records participation. Its clinical value depends on the care in which people are retained.

Background
Eating disorders (ED) and psychosis/psychotic-spectrum disorders (PSD) have overlapping symptoms and may co-occur in a variety of presentations. Due to its debilitating and life-threatening risk, it is important for clinicians to be aware of how catatonia may present within these co-occurrences.

Method
A narrative review was conducted of catatonic presentations in individuals with co-occurring EDs and psychosis, using the databases Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, ProQuest and PsychInfo.

Results
This article reviews and summarises the 10 cases found in the literature, and explores critical considerations within ED-psychosis co-occurrence, including the author's lived experience insight into experiencing catatonia within co-occurring ED-psychosis. In 9 out of 10 cases, catatonia occurred during adolescence (ages 13–24). Fifty percent of cases involved stressful or traumatic events as a precipitant to catatonia emergence. Autistic individuals with EDs may be particularly vulnerable to catatonic symptoms. In most cases, catatonic symptoms responded to lorazepam treatment or a combination of lorazepam and other medications such as antipsychotics, although tube-feeding was also required in some cases.

Conclusion
This review discusses key factors and intersections that are highly relevant to individuals vulnerable to EDs and psychosis (i.e., malnutrition, trauma, autism, bipolar disorder, OCD). Catatonic symptoms may be mistaken for ED symptoms, delaying early treatment in individuals with ED. Consideration of catatonic presentations and trauma-informed and neurodivergent-affirming treatment practices are recommended.

This guide provides an overview of key considerations for navigating researcher lived experience. It introduces the concept of lived experience in research, outlines common risks and challenges, highlights possibilities and benefits, and offers some practical tools to support researchers with lived experience in their work. While the focus is primarily on lived experience in the context of mental health research, the themes and strategies discussed are likely relevant across diverse lived experience research contexts. The guide does not prescribe a single path, as the journeys of lived experience researchers vary widely. Instead, it highlights key areas for consideration to prompt reflection, especially for those new to the field. This guide will explore questions such as: How accommodating is my workplace to people with lived experience, and how do I work within that context? Should I share my lived experience, and what impact might that have? What helps me stay well and feel safe in this work? How can connecting with peers, mentors, or communities support me—and how might I give back? By exploring these types of questions, it is our hope that this guide can support those with lived experience to chart their own course into and through research in ways that foster safety, well-being, empowerment, equity, and personal and collective growth, and that affirm the vital place of people with lived experience in shaping knowledge through research.

Across medical and mental health research, lived experience (LE) collaboration and partnership is increasingly being prioritised and embedded into research methods and considered as an essential ethical approach. In eating disorder (ED) research, however, LE involvement is still emerging, and ED researchers have identified a need for guidance on ethical collaboration with people with LE. Written by a team of LE researchers and advocates, this article outlines core principles for ethical and meaningful partnership for people with ED in research, including: (1) Recognise lived experience as expertise, (2) Share power and decision-making, (3) Support autonomy, readiness, and dignity of risk, (4) Clarify roles, expectations, and disclosure choices, (5) Provide fair remuneration, authorship, and recognition, (6) Build emotionally safe and sustainable ways of working, (7) Practice reflexivity and transparency, (8) Ensure mutual benefit and capacity building. Conceptual clarification is also provided regarding types of LE involvement in ED research, with examples (LE-led research, co-production, co-design, consultation). Using the core principles, practical guidance is provided for clarifying roles and expectations, supporting disclosure choices, planning remuneration and authorship, developing emotionally safe ways of working, and addressing institutional barriers to meaningful partnership. This article aims to support the ED research community in shared learning and growth opportunities for ethical collaboration with people with LE in ED research.

What you need to know
Suicidal ideation is defined as thoughts, considerations, or plans surrounding suicide
Psychiatric diagnoses, younger and older age, female sex, physical disabilities, and marginalised status are risk factors
No clinical guidelines suggest universal screening for suicidal ideation; however screening at-risk populations is recommended
Cognitive behavioural therapy shows the strongest evidence for treatment of suicidal ideation