what self-harm is, the factors that contribute to its occurrence, and the control measures

what self-harm is, the factors that contribute to its occurrence, and the control measures

Introduction

The presentation conclusively demonstrates what self-harm is, the factors that contribute to its occurrence, and the control measures. The paper focuses on the mental health of adolescents and specifically dwells on cutting as one of the methods of self-harm. The prevalence of self-harm on different age sets is described to understand how age and self-harm correlate. The paper identifies the misuse of the internet as the leading risk factor and precursor to initiating or exacerbating self-harm. The impact of social support networks is explained to address its importance, how the lack of it may lead to individuals feeling isolated, and the effect it has when it is negative in nature. The organization of the paper begins first by definition of self-harm and outlines the objectives that are to be achieved by the analysis of the subject. The risk factor that causes cutting is then identified and explained. The misuse of internet and negative social support networks is then elaborated on with specification on the contribution to self-harm. The nursing interventions are then outlined with the Ottawa Charter & Health Promotion used as an example of a cause that creates social environments. The paper is finalized by a conclusion section that summarizes the findings.

Stages of Team Development

The progress of the group discussion during the project generally conformed to Tuckman’s five stages of team development. During the forming stages, when the members were initially assigned to the group, there was a high level of uncertainty with individual members as everyone could not clearly define the roles they were expected to play in the development of the project (Tuckman et al, 1977). The group experienced the storming stage, where most individuals were reluctant to participate in the group proceedings or were unwilling to accept the portions of the assignment that had been allocated to them. This led to conflict as some members felt they had been given more challenging topics to tackle compared to other group members. This period was characterized by little output in terms of the overall development of the project (Tuckman et al, 1977). The group leader experienced challenges in getting the members to order and engage in constructive discussions that would lead to the accomplishment of the project. However, through constructive criticism and the understanding that completing the project would be beneficial to the members involved, the group resolved to work together, and everyone agreed to work on the topics they had been assigned and present them in due time.

The norming stage of the group was characterized by the group members accepting the leadership of the group leader and adhering to the timelines that had been stipulated (Tuckman et al, 1977). The group members provided regular updates on the progress of the assignments they had been given and outline the areas they were experiencing challenges. The level of output increased with most of the objectives that had been outlined being achieved by the group. The performing stage also saw an enhanced contribution from the members as all assignments were submitted and reviewed by the group. Each of the submissions on the tasks was discussed in depth. Areas that had not been addressed sufficiently were added more content, and those that were irrelevant or incorrect were corrected. The discussions were harmonious with a little conflict between individual members (Tuckman et al, 1977). The adjourning stage involved compiling the assignments and proofreading to ascertain the flow and cohesiveness of the paper. The members also registered their wish to work on another project with the same group members.

Personal Contribution and the Group’s Effectiveness

My contribution to the team development first involved completing a task, which was an assignment of nursing interventions of health education concerning safe internet use (Crowe et al, 2006). The assignment was well researched and touched on all the interventions that could be used by nurses in controlling self-harm. I also collaborated with other members of the group in assigning tasks and reviewing the submissions from group members (Crowe et al, 2006). I positively critiqued areas I saw as unsatisfactory and commended group members who presented well-researched assignments. I also presented different proposals on how to negotiate and carry out the project, some of which were adopted. The most effective characteristic of the group was the in-depth and thorough research that was done when carrying out the individual assignments on the topics that had been allocated. During the presentation, the members accepted and included further contribution and correction of their work. The ineffective characteristic experienced was that the group was not very receptive to more creative ways of delivering the presentation to the audience. One of the ideas was to demonstrate adolescents cutting themselves through role-playing dramatically. To improve on this, the group resolved to record an episode where the members would watch a disturbing image on the internet that would trigger them to cut themselves to get relief.

Conclusion

The paper effectively achieves its objectives and provides an in-depth analysis of cutting as one of the methods of self-harm, the factors that trigger it, and the interventions applied in managing it. Internet misuse is identified as the leading cause of this problem due to access to disturbing images that act as the trigger to cutting one’s self. The social support network is identified both as a cause and a solution to the problem. The group’s development process generally conformed to Tuckman’s five stages of group development from the forming stage to the adjourning stage. My contribution involved researching the nursing interventions that could be applied in controlling the condition. The group was generally effective in engaging in thorough research on assigned tasks and accepting correction from group members. However, ineffectiveness was also experienced in the reluctance of the group to adopt ideas presented to them to improve the presentation of findings.