It’s not only teenage girls, and it’s rarely attention-seeking: debunking the myths around self-injury


Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. But people who self-injure aren’t doing it to end their life.
Author provided

Penelope Hasking, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, University of Guelph

Non-suicidal self-injury is the deliberate damage of body tissue without conscious suicidal intent. It’s more specific than self-harm, a broader term that can also include suicide attempts.

Self-injury is reasonably common, particularly among young people. In community samples, 17% of adolescents and 13% of young adults had engaged in self-injury.

Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. People who self-injure are typically doing so to cope with intense emotions.




Read more:
Why do people intentionally injure themselves?


Although we continue to understand more about self-injury, there remains significant public stigma towards people who self-injure.

This stigma can make people who self-injure reluctant to seek help or disclose their experiences to others. Research shows only half the people who are already seeing a therapist for mental health concerns will tell even their therapist about it.

One way to combat stigma, and support disclosure and help-seeking, is to debunk the common myths and misconceptions that surround self-injury.

Myth 1: only teenage girls self-injure

Self-injury is often thought of as a “teen fad”, and as especially prevalent among teenage girls. It’s true self-injury usually starts during adolescence, but people of all ages and genders self-injure. Recent research shows the second most common time to start self-injury is in a person’s early 20s.

Consistent with this, self-injury is common among university students; up to one in five report a history of self-injury, with about 8% self-injuring for the first time during university.

Although more women in treatment settings report self-injury, it’s likely that in community settings, self-injury is equally common among males and females. This may be because women are more likely than men to seek help.

Myth 2: people who self-injure are attention-seeking

One of the more pervasive myths about self-injury is that people self-injure to seek attention. Yet, self-injury is usually a very secretive behaviour, and people go to great lengths to hide their self-injury.

Instead, in the majority of research, people report the main reason they self-injure is to cope with intense or unwanted emotions.




Read more:
Talking about suicide and self-harm in schools can save lives


Other common reasons people self-injure are to punish themselves or to stop an escalating cycle of painful thoughts and feelings. People may self-injure to communicate how distressed they are, particularly if they have trouble verbally expressing their feelings. In other words, their self-injury is a cry for help.

A recent study found influencing and punishing others was the least likely reason for self-injury.

Myth 3: people who self-injure are suicidal

By definition, non-suicidal self-injury is not motivated by a desire to end life. In addition to serving a different function, the frequency of suicidal and non-suicidal behaviours differs. That is, suicide attempts are generally infrequent, whereas non-suicidal behaviours can occur more often.

People who self-injure can benefit from support from friends, family, and health professionals.
From shutterstock.com

The methods used, the outcomes of the behaviours, and appropriate treatment responses also all differ. People at risk of suicide may require immediate and more intensive intervention; although both non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal behaviour need to be taken seriously and responded to compassionately.

For these reasons, it’s important to be clear when we are talking about self-injury and when we are talking about suicidal thoughts or behaviour.

Myth 4: there is a self-injury ‘epidemic’

While many people report at least one instance of self-injury, fewer people engage in repeated episodes.

Further, there is little evidence rates of self-injury have increased in recent years. Hospital records indicate an increase in presentations for “deliberate self-harm”, but these are predominantly poisonings, not self-injury.

Other studies show more people reporting self-injury, but it’s unclear whether this is because people are more comfortable disclosing their self-injury, or because self-injury is increasing.

Research suggests when the methodologies of the studies are taken into account, rates of self-injury have not increased over time.




Read more:
Does more mental health treatment and less stigma produce better mental health?


Myth 5: social media contributes to self-injury

Internet and social media are highly relevant to many people who self-injure as they offer a means to obtain social support, share their experiences with others who have been through similar things, and obtain coping and recovery-oriented resources (for example, stories about other people’s experiences).

This is not surprising given the stigma attached to self-injury, which leaves many people who self-injure feeling isolated from others.

Despite these benefits, there are concerns online material, including graphic images and videos depicting self-injury, may trigger people to engage in self-injury. While only a few studies explicitly examine this, there is some evidence viewing graphic imagery is associated with self-injury. However, images of scars may not be as triggering.

There are also concerns exposure to messages that carry hopeless themes (for example, “it’s impossible to stop self-injuring”), may contribute to continued self-injury and impede help-seeking.

But at the same time, exposure to more positive messages may offer hope about recovery.

Fostering understanding

Self-injury is a common behaviour engaged in by a broad spectrum of people. Given its association with psychological difficulties and suicide risk, it’s critical self-injury be taken seriously and not dismissed or glossed over.




Read more:
Australian teens doing well, but some still at high risk of suicide and self-harm


People who engage in self-injury need to know it’s okay to seek support (from friends, family, and health professionals) and that people can and do recover.

For anyone who knows someone who self-injures, it’s important to respond to that person in a non-judgemental and compassionate manner. Just knowing there is someone supportive who is willing to listen can make a big difference to a person who self-injures.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.The Conversation

Penelope Hasking, Associate Professor of Psychology, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Guelph

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Four myths about water fluoridation and why they’re wrong



File 20170712 3087 9hjdw5
Adding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements. Yet, myths persist about whether it’s safe and works.
from www.shutterstock.com

Matthew Hopcraft, University of Melbourne

Evidence gathered over 60 years about adding fluoride to drinking water has failed to convince some people this major public health initiative is not only safe but helps to prevent tooth decay.

Myths about fluoridated water persist. These include fluoride isn’t natural, adding it to our water supplies doesn’t prevent tooth decay and it causes conditions ranging from cancer to Down syndrome.

Now the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is in the process of updating its evidence on the impact of fluoridated water on human health since it last issued a statement on the topic in 2007.

Its draft findings and recommendations are clear cut:

NHMRC strongly recommends community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and ethical way to help reduce tooth decay across the population.

It came to its conclusion after analysing the evidence and issuing a technical report for those wanting more detail.

Here are four common myths the evidence says are wrong.

1. Fluoride isn’t natural

Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance found in rocks that leaches into groundwater; it’s also found in surface water. The natural level of fluoride in the water varies depending on the type of water (groundwater or surface) and the type of rocks and minerals it’s in contact with.

Fluoride is found in all natural water supplies at some concentration. Ocean water contains fluoride at around 1 part per million, about the same as levels of fluoridated drinking water in Australia.

There are many places in Australia where fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply at optimum levels to maintain good dental health. For example, both Portland and Port Fairy in Victoria have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at 0.7-1.0 parts per million.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The type of fluoride commonly found in many rocks and the source of the naturally occurring fluoride ion in water supplies is calcium fluoride.

The three main fluoride compounds generally used to fluoridate water are: sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) and sodium silicofluoride. All these fully mix (dissociate) in water, resulting in the availability of fluoride ions to prevent tooth decay.

So regardless of the original compound source, the end result is the same – fluoride ions in the water.

2. Fluoridated water doesn’t work

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Evidence for water fluoridation dates back to US studies in the 1940s, where dental researchers noticed lower levels of tooth decay in areas with naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply.

This prompted a study involving the artificial fluoridation of water supplies to a large community, and comparing the tooth decay rates to a neighbouring community with no fluoride.

The trial had to be discontinued after six years because the benefits to the children in the fluoridated community were so obvious it was deemed unethical to not provide the benefits to all the children, and so the control community water supply was also fluoridated.


Further reading: How fluoride in water helps prevent tooth decay


Since then, consistently we see lower levels of tooth decay associated with water fluoridation, and the most recent evidence, from Australia and overseas, supports this.

The NHMRC review found children and teenagers who had lived in areas with water fluoridation had 26-44% fewer teeth or surfaces affected by decay, and adults had 27% less tooth decay.

A number of factors are likely to influence the variation across populations and countries, including diet, access to dental care, and the amount of tap water people drink.

3. Fluoridated water causes cancer and other health problems

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The NHMRC found, there was reliable evidence to suggest water fluoridation at current levels in Australia of 0.6-1.1 parts per million is not associated with: cancer, Down syndrome, cognitive problems, lowered intelligence, hip fracture, chronic kidney disease, kidney stones, hardening of the arteries, high blood pressure, low birth weight, premature death from any cause, musculoskeletal pain, osteoporosis, skeletal fluorosis (extra bone fluoride), thyroid problems or other self-reported complaints.


Further reading: Why do some controversies persist despite the evidence?


This confirms previous statements from the NHMRC on the safety of water fluoridation, and statements from international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the World Dental Federation, the Australian Dental Association and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most studies that claim to show adverse health effects report on areas where there are high levels of fluoride occurring naturally in the water supply. This is often more than 2-10 parts per million or more, up to 10 times levels found in Australian water.

These studies are also often not of the highest quality, for example with small sample sizes and not taking into account other factors that may affect adverse health outcomes.

There is, however, evidence that fluoridated water is linked to both the amount and severity of dental fluorosis. This is caused by being exposed to excess fluoride (from any source) while the teeth are forming, affecting how the tooth enamel mineralises.

Most dental fluorosis in Australia is very mild or mild, and does not affect the either the function or appearance of the teeth. When you can see it, there are fine white flecks or lines on the teeth. Moderate dental fluorosis is very uncommon, and tends to include brown patches on the tooth surface. Severe dental fluorosis is rare in Australia.

4. Fluoridated water is not safe for infant formula

Some people are concerned about using fluoridated water to make up infant formula.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

However, all infant formula sold in Australia has very low levels of fluoride, below the threshold amount of 17 micrograms of fluoride/100 kilojules (before reconstitution), which would require a warning label.

Therefore, making up infant formula with fluoridated tap water at levels found in Australian (0.6-1.1 parts per million) is safe, and does not pose a risk for dental fluorosis. Indeed, Australian research shows there is no association between infant formula use and dental fluorosis.

A consistent message

The ConversationAdding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works and is safe. This latest review, tailored to Australia, adds to that evidence.

Matthew Hopcraft, Clinical Associate Professor, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bust the regional city myths and look beyond the ‘big 5’ for a $378b return



File 20170623 27880 7ozx6i
Geelong’s relatively high creative industries score, coupled with a robust rate of business entries, provides a solid foundation for steady growth.
paulrommer from www.shutterstock.com

Leonie Pearson, University of Canberra

Investing in regional cities’ economic performance makes good sense. Contrary to popular opinion, new research out today shows regional cities generate national economic growth and jobs at the same rate as big metropolitan cities. They are worthy of economic investment in their own right – not just on social and equity grounds.

However, for regional cities to capture their potential A$378 billion output to 2031, immediate action is needed. Success will see regional cities in 2031 produce twice as much as all the new economy industries produce in today’s metropolitan cities.

Drawing on lessons from the UK, the collaborative work by the Regional Australia Institute and the UK Centre for Cities spotlights criteria and data all Australian cities can use to help get themselves investment-ready.

Build on individual strengths

The Regional Australia Institute’s latest work confirms that city population size does not determine economic performance. There is no significant statistical difference between the economic performance of Australia’s big five metro cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) and its 31 regional cities in historical output, productivity and participation rates.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LSkSm/1/

So, regional cities are as well positioned to create investment returns as their big five metro cousins. The same rules apply – investment that builds on existing city strengths and capabilities will produce returns.

No two cities have the same strengths and capabilities. However, regional cities do fall into four economic performance groups – gaining, expanding, slipping, and slow and steady. This helps define the investment focus they might require.

For example, the report finds Fraser Coast (Hervey Bay), Sunshine Coast-Noosa and Gold Coast are gaining cities. Their progress is fuelled by high population growth rates (around 2.7% annually from 2001 to 2013). But stimulating local businesses will deliver big job growth opportunities.

Rapid population growth is driving the Gold Coast economy, making it a ‘gaining’ city.
Pawel Papis from www.shutterstock.com

Similarly, the expanding cities of Cairns, Central Coast and Toowoomba are forecast to have annual output growth of 3.2% to 3.9% until 2031, building on strong foundations of business entries. But they need to create more high-income jobs.

Geelong and Ballarat have low annual population growth rates of around 1.2% to 1.5%. They are classified as slow and steady cities. But their relatively high creative industries scores, coupled with robust rates of business entries, means they have great foundations for growth. They need to stimulate local businesses to deliver city growth.

Get ready to deal

Regional cities remain great places to live. They often score more highly than larger cities on measures of wellbeing and social connection.

But if there’s no shared vision, or local leaders can’t get along well enough to back a shared set of priorities, or debate is dominated by opinion in spite of evidence, local politics may win the day. Negotiations to secure substantial city investment will then likely fail.

The federal government’s Smart Cities Plan has identified City Deals as the vehicle for investment in regional cities.

This collaborative, cross-portfolio, cross-jurisdictional investment mechanism needs all players working together (federal, state and local government), along with community, university and private sector partners. This leaves no place for dominant single interests at the table.

Clearly, the most organised regional cities ready to deal are those capable of getting collaborative regional leadership and strategic planning.

For example, the G21 region in Victoria (including Greater Geelong, Queenscliffe, Surf Coast, Colac Otway and Golden Plains) has well-established credentials in this area. This has enabled the region to move quickly on City Deal negotiations.

Moving past talk to be investment-ready

There’s $378 billion on the table, but Australia’s capacity to harness it will depend on achieving two key goals.

  • First, shifting the entrenched view that the smart money invests only in our big metro cities. This is wrong. Regional cities are just as well positioned to create investment returns as the big five metro centres.

  • Second, regions need to get “investment-ready” for success. This means they need to be able to collaborate well enough to develop an informed set of shared priorities for investment, supported by evidence and linked to a clear growth strategy that builds on existing economic strengths and capabilities. They need to demonstrate their capacity to deliver.

While there has been much conjecture on the relevance and appropriateness of City Deals in Australia, it is mainly focused on big cities. But both big and small cities drive our national growth.


The ConversationYou can explore the data and compare the 31 regional cities using the RAI’s interactive data visualisation tool.

Leonie Pearson, Adjunct Associate, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conclusive scientific evidence: homosexuality is treatable


The U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has just released its long-awaited comprehensive review of over 125 years of scientific research on homosexuality, reports Family Watch International.

This groundbreaking report, “What Research Shows,” dispels the myths that are commonly used to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage and the mainstreaming of homosexuality throughout society and in the public schools by force of law.

NARTH is a professional association of scientists and mental health professionals whose stated mission is to conduct and disseminate scientific research on homosexuality, promote effective treatment, and to protect the right of individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction to receive effective care.

While one might think that such a mission would be viewed as both commendable and relatively non-controversial, the reality is just the opposite. Homosexual activists try to suppress research on same-sex attraction because one of the pillars of homosexual advocacy is the falsehood that homosexuals are “born that way” and cannot change their orientation. Since the NARTH report proves that homosexuality can be changed through therapy in the same way conditions like alcoholism and other addictions can be changed, the whole case for mainstreaming homosexuality into society crumbles. Another myth the NARTH report disproves is that therapy to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction is ineffective and even harmful.

The extensive research and clinical experience reviewed by NARTH makes it clear even to a layman that these claims are false. Homosexual activists spread these misconceptions about homosexuality and even persecute their own who seek treatment because they know that public opinion polls show that people who believe homosexuals are born that way are more likely to support the homosexual agenda. NARTH is one of the very few credible, professional organizations anywhere in the world that is successfully challenging this propaganda.

Specifically, the NARTH report substantiates the following conclusions:

1. There is substantial evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.

“Treatment success for clients seeking to change unwanted homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential has been documented in the professional and research literature since the late 19th century. …125 years of clinical and scientific reports which document those professionally-assisted and other attempts at volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality has been successful for many and that such change continues to be possible for those who are motivated to try.”

2. Efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be consistently harmful or to regularly lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.

“We acknowledge that change in sexual orientation may be difficult to attain. As with other difficult challenges and behavioral patterns—such as low-self-esteem, abuse of alcohol, social phobias, eating disorders, or borderline personality disorder, as well as sexual compulsions and addictions—change through therapy does not come easily.”

“We conclude that the documented benefits of reorientation therapy—and the lack of its documented general harmfulness—support its continued availability to clients who exercise their right of therapeutic autonomy and self-determination through ethically informed consent.”

The NARTH report warns that “The limited body of clinical reports that claim that harm is possible—if not probable— if a person simply attempts to change typically were written by gay activist professionals.”

3. There is significantly greater medical, psychological, and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.

“Researchers have shown that medical, psychological and relationship pathology within the homosexual community is more prevalent than within the general population. …In some cases, homosexual men are at greater risk than homosexual women and heterosexual men, while in other cases homosexual women are more at risk than homosexual men and heterosexual women. …Overall, many of these problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population—and sometimes much more. …We believe that no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”

You can read NARTH’s executive summary of the report on our Web site here.

Report from the Christian Telegraph