Experiences of forensic mental health patients and professionals with shared violence risk assessment and management: A scoping review of qualitative studies

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Mimosa Luigi , Laurie-Anne Martinez , Laurence Roy , Anne G. Crocker
{"title":"Experiences of forensic mental health patients and professionals with shared violence risk assessment and management: A scoping review of qualitative studies","authors":"Mimosa Luigi ,&nbsp;Laurie-Anne Martinez ,&nbsp;Laurence Roy ,&nbsp;Anne G. Crocker","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2024.102009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Person-centered care and shared decision-making between inpatients and professionals have become guiding principles for mental health care, yet their integration in forensic services remains limited by security-driven and legal considerations. In this context, emerging models of shared risk assessment and risk management could transform forensic patients' experience of, engagement in, and satisfaction with care. However, little evidence informs how shared approaches can improve these experiences of care and be successfully implemented in the forensic context.</div><div>A scoping review was conducted to understand the experiences of forensic patients and professionals in implementing shared approaches for violence risk assessment and management. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest were searched for qualitative studies, restricting to inpatient adult settings and interventions targeting hetero-aggression or violence. Raters screened records, appraised quality, and charted findings for narrative synthesis and meta-aggregation.</div><div>From 1325 non-duplicate records screened, four articles were selected featuring three multicomponent approaches and one risk assessment tool. Both patients and professionals reported benefits, such as improved therapeutic relationships and patient self-understanding. Participants outlined interpersonal-, intervention-, and organizational-level barriers for patients to effectively influence decision-making. Practice and research implications are discussed, including training needs, how to address and leverage disagreements, and developing organizational change strategies to support shared approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 102009"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000995","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Person-centered care and shared decision-making between inpatients and professionals have become guiding principles for mental health care, yet their integration in forensic services remains limited by security-driven and legal considerations. In this context, emerging models of shared risk assessment and risk management could transform forensic patients' experience of, engagement in, and satisfaction with care. However, little evidence informs how shared approaches can improve these experiences of care and be successfully implemented in the forensic context.
A scoping review was conducted to understand the experiences of forensic patients and professionals in implementing shared approaches for violence risk assessment and management. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest were searched for qualitative studies, restricting to inpatient adult settings and interventions targeting hetero-aggression or violence. Raters screened records, appraised quality, and charted findings for narrative synthesis and meta-aggregation.
From 1325 non-duplicate records screened, four articles were selected featuring three multicomponent approaches and one risk assessment tool. Both patients and professionals reported benefits, such as improved therapeutic relationships and patient self-understanding. Participants outlined interpersonal-, intervention-, and organizational-level barriers for patients to effectively influence decision-making. Practice and research implications are discussed, including training needs, how to address and leverage disagreements, and developing organizational change strategies to support shared approaches.
法医精神病患者和专业人员在共同暴力风险评估和管理方面的经验:定性研究范围综述
以人为本的护理以及住院病人与专业人员之间的共同决策已成为精神健康护理的指导原则,但将其融入法医服务仍受到安全驱动和法律因素的限制。在这种情况下,新兴的共享风险评估和风险管理的模式可以改变法医病人对护理的体验、参与度和满意度。为了了解法医患者和专业人员在实施暴力风险评估和管理共享方法方面的经验,我们进行了一项范围界定综述。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO和ProQuest中的定性研究,研究对象仅限于成人住院环境和针对异性侵害或暴力的干预措施。评分员筛选记录、评估质量,并将结果制成图表,以便进行叙述性综合和元汇总。从筛选出的 1325 条非重复记录中,选出了四篇文章,其中包括三种多成分方法和一种风险评估工具。患者和专业人员都报告了他们的获益,如改善了治疗关系和患者的自我认识。参与者概述了患者在人际、干预和组织层面上影响决策的障碍。讨论了实践和研究意义,包括培训需求、如何解决和利用分歧,以及制定组织变革策略以支持共同方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信