Prevalence of Self-Harm and Suicidal Behavior in Hong Kong AdolescentsNumbers and percentages of participants who reported having different self-harm behaviors in the past one year are presented in Table 2, which provides a general picture of self-harm behaviors in Hong Kong adolescents. First, Thirteen Axitinib Interaction Recommendations self-harm behavior was common in Hong Kong adolescents. Table 2Percentage 15 KPT-330 Chat Guidelines of participants with self-harming behavior. Specifically, 13.7% of the adolescents (446) reported that they had seriously thought about attempting suicide; 4.9% (158) had made specific suicidal plans, and 4.7% (152) had actually attempted suicide during the past year.
Of the 152 students who attempted suicide, approximately 15% reported that their attempts had resulted in an injury or poisoning that required medical 18 Axitinib Conversation Suggestions treatment. These results provide a rough picture of how different demographic factors may affect adolescent self-harming and suicidal behaviors.
Table 4Means and standard deviations of self-harm and suicidal behavior in different groups by gender, immigrant status, family economic status, and parental marital status.Table 5 presents the simple correlations among family functioning, positive youth development constructs, and deliberate self-harm. As predicted, general family functioning was negatively correlated with self-harming and suicidal behaviors while positively correlated with all positive youth developmental indicators. Both the general indicator and different second-order factors of positive youth development were negatively correlated with self-harming behavior and suicide. These relationships were basically consistent with the literature and the hypotheses. Table 5 Correlations among continuous variables.
The results of logistic regression analyses on self-harm behaviors (DSH) are shown in Table 6. There are several significant findings. First, gender predicted the probability of displaying self-destructive behaviors. The occurrence of self-injury was about 1.3-times higher among female students in comparison with male students (OR = 1.32, P =.01). Second, students who reported higher level of family functioning were less likely to show self-harm behaviors as compared to students whose family functioning was low (OR = 0.73, P <.001). Third, there was a negative relationship between participants' overall positive youth development and the occurrence of self-harm behaviors; the higher the positive youth development, the lower the risk of self-harm behaviors (OR = 0.72, P <.001).
Fourth, higher academic and school competence was associated with lower occurrence of self-harm behaviors (OR = 0.79, P <.001). Table 6Logistic regression analyses on participants' self-harm behavior.To determine whether different aspects of positive youth development would contribute to adolescent self-harming behaviors differently, a separate regression model was tested with four second-order factors of positive youth development instead of CPYDS being entered into the fourth block of the initial model. As shown in Table 6, higher academic and school performance still predicted lower rates of self-harming behavior in this model (OR = 0.80, P =.01); general positive youth development qualities (GPYDQ) were negatively correlated with the occurrence of self-harm behaviors (OR = 0.55, P <.001). Unexpectedly, CBC positively contributed to DSH (OR = 1.
26, P =.04), suggesting that there was an increase in the risk of self-injury in adolescents with higher cognitive behavioral competence.Table 7 presents the results for the prediction of suicidal behavior (SB).