Conference Agenda

Growing interest has been paid to the concept of nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) recovery. In research, and sometimes clinical practice, the focus has been on NSSI cessation, with recovery operationalised with reference to the time since someone last self‐injured. Yet, perspectives from people with lived experience of NSSI indicate that recovery is much more complex. Drawing on recent empirical work, and the voices of people with lived experience of NSSI, we outline a new framework for conceptualising NSSI recovery. We argue that recovery is nonlinear and multifaceted, comprising: Realistic Expectations and Setbacks; Normalising Thoughts and Urges; Fostering Self‐efficacy; Identifying Strengths; Finding Alternatives; Addressing Underlying Adversities; Addressing and Accepting Scarring; Navigating Disclosures; and Self‐acceptance. Further we include: a) ambivalence that individuals feel about ceasing self-injury – wanting to stop, but also wanting to keep NSSI in their coping toolkit; b) the ongoing and developing nature of disclosure of self-injury experiences, as well as the difference between voluntary disclosure and involuntary discovery of NSSI; c) the role of identity in building resilience and meaning making; d) the significant role of stigma – in society, systems of care, and at an individual level; and e) how recovery fits within one’s socio-cultural landscape. In presenting research and clinical implications of this new framework, we propose that this framing offers a more complete understanding of NSSI recovery - one conducive to optimising wellbeing and promoting resilience among individuals with lived experience.

Suicide is a gendered phenomenon with men dying at higher rates than women in almost every country. Despite this gender bias in deaths by suicide, major gaps remain in our understanding of what supports men to cope with suicidal pain and reorient themselves toward a meaningful life.

We conducted a qualitative metasynthesis and systematic review of 20 years of studies with men who are suicidal and people who are bereaved by male suicide, to identify critical risk and recovery factors. We identified 78 studies that encapsulated insights from over 1,695 people. Applying Thomas and Harden’s thematic synthesis method, we systematically compared and integrated findings across studies, identifying recurring patterns and developing higher-order themes that captured men’s recovery processes.

Our recovery-related findings suggest the importance of interventions to support men who are suicidal in learning to recognise, reconnect with, and regulate their emotions, relationship with self, and interpersonal connections. Healthy regulation of these three psychological domains (emotions, self, and connections) appeared to enhance some men’s ability to manage their psychological pain more effectively, thereby reducing suicide risk.

We synthesised these processes into a “3 ‘R’ Model of Recovery” (Recognition, Reconnection, Regulation), which we believe can offer a broad framework for guiding interventions for men at risk.

Suicide remains a leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults, yet remission from suicidal thoughts and behaviours is common. Far less is known about how recovery unfolds as a lived, temporal process, particularly from the perspective of young people themselves. This study addresses this gap by examining how adolescents and emerging adults describe the initiation, development, and present meaning of their recovery from suicidality.

We conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with young people aged 16–22 years (M = 19.7, SD = 1.68, 22% males) who self-identified as recovered from suicidality. Interviews explored the initiation and course of recovery and the ongoing role of recovery in daily life. Data were analysed thematically using an inductive–deductive approach supported by Atlas.ti and participant-level trajectory summaries.

Participants described recovery as nonlinear, fluctuating, and relational. For many, recovery began without a single defining moment, emerging instead through small shifts in circumstances or mindset and through meaningful conversations with trusted adults, peers, or clinicians. Personal insight, such as recognising harmful patterns or imagining a more hopeful future, frequently complemented social support. Participants also emphasized the importance of therapeutic tools, emotional regulation skills, structured routines, and validating relationships in fostering stability and a growing sense of control. Several respondents continued to experience suicidal thoughts during recovery, though typically with reduced intensity and most participants described feeling stronger, more self-aware, and better equipped to manage distress. Even during periods of active suicidality, participants reported brief positive experiences, suggesting that hope and connection can coexist with distress. Recovery was understood not as the disappearance of suicidality but as an active, ongoing process of cultivating hope, meaning, connection, and a future-oriented sense of self.

These findings highlight recovery as an evolving developmental process and underscore the need for youth-centred, process-oriented approaches to suicide prevention and care.

Extensive research highlights that caring for youth experience self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs) can be highly distressing for caregivers, often leading to long-term consequences for the family. Most studies have focused solely on caregivers who are aware of their child’s SITBs, limiting our understanding of the magnitude of caregivers’ difficulties. This study examined cross-sectional and prospective differences in mental health and family functioning among caregivers aware of their child’s SITBs, caregivers unaware of their child’s SITBs, and caregivers of children without SITBs.

Data were drawn from an epidemiological U.S. sample of children (ages 9–10) and their caregivers who participated in three-yearly assessments in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study (N = 11,303, 47.6% female). Caregivers reported on their own mental health problems and SITBs, their child’s SITBs, and family conflict. Children reported on their own SITBs, family conflict, parental monitoring, and parental acceptance.

Compared to caregivers of children without SITBs (81%), both aware (9.9%) and unaware (9.1%) caregivers reported more externalizing problems at baseline. Their children reported more family conflict and lower parental monitoring and acceptance across assessments. Relative to unaware caregivers and caregivers of children without SITBs, aware caregivers reported elevated internalizing problems at baseline and greater odds of engaging in SITBs at baseline and follow-up. Compared to children of unaware caregivers, children of aware caregivers reported lower family conflict and higher parental monitoring and acceptance at baseline. In contrast, aware caregivers reported higher family conflict at baseline and one year later compared to unaware caregivers.

Overall, caregivers of children with SITBs showed more mental health problems and long-term family difficulties, regardless of awareness. Aware caregivers also reported higher SITB risk. Family-based interventions targeting caregivers’ mental health may help reduce children’s SITBs and improve family well-being.

Family members play a critical role in supporting young people at risk of suicide, however to date suicide safety plans have been developed without consideration of the experience and needs of parents and carers. The study aimed to explore parents’ experiences and perspectives about young people’s use of suicide safety planning. We interviewed 14 parents (13 mothers, 1 father) of young people aged between 14 and 24 years (mean: 18.77, SD: 3.14) who had created, updated or used a safety plan in the past 12 months. A reflective thematic analysis was conducted on transcribed interviews. Generated themes from the analysis included: 1. Collaborative and regular communication with clinicians and young people fostered effective use; 2. Inadequate information and support from clinicians undermined parents’ ability to support young people; 3. Lack of agency and confidence when sharing safety plans with schools. 4. Ongoing and pervasive burden and isolation. We will discuss the implications of these findings for future research and targeted interventions.