{"title":"Uncovering the gaps: Violence risk assessment tools and their validity among Australian First Nations adults with mental disorders.","authors":"Edjoni Blackledge, Gemma Goodwin, Jessica Proctor, Stephane Shepherd","doi":"10.1177/10398562251353329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThere is ongoing debate on the cultural appropriateness of violence risk assessment tools, particularly for marginalised populations such as Australian First Nations peoples, in determining court outcomes.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to evaluate existing validated violence risk assessment tools for use among Australian First Nations adults with diagnosed mental disorders.DesignA search across databases, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science, identified 1202 studies, of which 31 met eligibility criteria. Two studies were ultimately included.ResultsThe review found two studies examining the cultural appropriateness of these tools, both highlighting a significant lack of cultural validation. Existing instruments were criticised for potentially misidentifying violence risk in First Nations populations.ConclusionsThe scarcity of studies underscores the urgent need for culturally sensitive research and validation of risk assessment tools for Australian First Nations adults. This review questions the ethics of using unvalidated tools in sentencing and advocates for developing culturally appropriate methodologies for First Nations populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":8630,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"10398562251353329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562251353329","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundThere is ongoing debate on the cultural appropriateness of violence risk assessment tools, particularly for marginalised populations such as Australian First Nations peoples, in determining court outcomes.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to evaluate existing validated violence risk assessment tools for use among Australian First Nations adults with diagnosed mental disorders.DesignA search across databases, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science, identified 1202 studies, of which 31 met eligibility criteria. Two studies were ultimately included.ResultsThe review found two studies examining the cultural appropriateness of these tools, both highlighting a significant lack of cultural validation. Existing instruments were criticised for potentially misidentifying violence risk in First Nations populations.ConclusionsThe scarcity of studies underscores the urgent need for culturally sensitive research and validation of risk assessment tools for Australian First Nations adults. This review questions the ethics of using unvalidated tools in sentencing and advocates for developing culturally appropriate methodologies for First Nations populations.
关于暴力风险评估工具在决定法院结果方面的文化适宜性,特别是对澳大利亚第一民族等边缘化人群而言,一直存在争议。目的:本综述旨在评估现有的有效的暴力风险评估工具,用于诊断为精神障碍的澳大利亚第一民族成年人。DesignA检索了包括PsycINFO、MEDLINE和Web of Science在内的数据库,确定了1202项研究,其中31项符合资格标准。最终纳入了两项研究。结果本综述发现两项研究考察了这些工具的文化适宜性,均强调了文化验证的严重缺乏。有人批评现有的工具可能错误地识别原住民群体中的暴力风险。研究的缺乏强调了迫切需要对文化敏感的研究和对澳大利亚第一民族成人风险评估工具的验证。这篇综述质疑在量刑中使用未经验证的工具的伦理性,并倡导为第一民族开发适合文化的方法。
期刊介绍:
Australasian Psychiatry is the bi-monthly journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) that aims to promote the art of psychiatry and its maintenance of excellence in practice. The journal is peer-reviewed and accepts submissions, presented as original research; reviews; descriptions of innovative services; comments on policy, history, politics, economics, training, ethics and the Arts as they relate to mental health and mental health services; statements of opinion and letters. Book reviews are commissioned by the editor. A section of the journal provides information on RANZCP business and related matters.