Comparing co-production approaches to dynamic risk assessments in a forensic intellectual disability population: outcomes of a clinical pilot

IF 0.5 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Deborah J. Morris, E. Webb, Inga Stewart, Jordan Galsworthy, P. Wallang
{"title":"Comparing co-production approaches to dynamic risk assessments in a forensic intellectual disability population: outcomes of a clinical pilot","authors":"Deborah J. Morris, E. Webb, Inga Stewart, Jordan Galsworthy, P. Wallang","doi":"10.1108/JIDOB-08-2020-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nA co-produced clinical practice that aims to improve outcomes through a partnership with service users is becoming increasingly important in intellectual disability (ID) services, yet these approaches are under-evaluated in forensic settings. This study aims to explore and compare the feasibility of two approaches to co-production in the completion of dynamic risk assessments and management plans in a secure setting.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA convenience sample of adults admitted to a secure specialist forensic ID service (N = 54) completed the short dynamic risk scale (SDRS) and drafted risk management plans under one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants rated the SDRS and risk management plan first, separately from the multidisciplinary team (MDT). In the second condition, participants and MDTs rated the SDRS and risk management plan together.\n\n\nFindings\nIn total, 35 (65%) participants rated their risk assessments and 25 (47%) completed their risk management plans. Participants who rated their risk assessments separately from the MDT were significantly more likely to complete the SDRS (p = 0.025) and draft their risk management plans (p = 0.003). When rated separately, MDT scorers recorded significantly higher total SDRS scores compared to participants (p = 0.009). A series of Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between MDT and participant ratings on questions that required greater skills in abstraction and social reasoning, as well as sexual behaviour and self-harm.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nDetained participants with an ID will engage in their dynamic risk assessment and management plan processes. The study demonstrates the impact of different co-production methodologies on engagement and highlights areas for future research pertaining to co-production.\n","PeriodicalId":43468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-08-2020-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose A co-produced clinical practice that aims to improve outcomes through a partnership with service users is becoming increasingly important in intellectual disability (ID) services, yet these approaches are under-evaluated in forensic settings. This study aims to explore and compare the feasibility of two approaches to co-production in the completion of dynamic risk assessments and management plans in a secure setting. Design/methodology/approach A convenience sample of adults admitted to a secure specialist forensic ID service (N = 54) completed the short dynamic risk scale (SDRS) and drafted risk management plans under one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants rated the SDRS and risk management plan first, separately from the multidisciplinary team (MDT). In the second condition, participants and MDTs rated the SDRS and risk management plan together. Findings In total, 35 (65%) participants rated their risk assessments and 25 (47%) completed their risk management plans. Participants who rated their risk assessments separately from the MDT were significantly more likely to complete the SDRS (p = 0.025) and draft their risk management plans (p = 0.003). When rated separately, MDT scorers recorded significantly higher total SDRS scores compared to participants (p = 0.009). A series of Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between MDT and participant ratings on questions that required greater skills in abstraction and social reasoning, as well as sexual behaviour and self-harm. Originality/value Detained participants with an ID will engage in their dynamic risk assessment and management plan processes. The study demonstrates the impact of different co-production methodologies on engagement and highlights areas for future research pertaining to co-production.
比较合作生产方法动态风险评估在法医智力残疾人群:临床试点的结果
旨在通过与服务使用者的伙伴关系改善结果的共同生产的临床实践在智力残疾(ID)服务中变得越来越重要,但这些方法在法医环境中被低估了。本研究旨在探讨和比较两种合作生产方式在安全环境下完成动态风险评估和管理计划的可行性。设计/方法/方法:在安全的专业法医身份识别服务中接受的成人方便样本(N = 54)完成了短动态风险量表(SDRS),并在两种条件之一下起草了风险管理计划。在第一种情况下,参与者首先对SDRS和风险管理计划进行评级,与多学科团队(MDT)分开。在第二种情况下,参与者和MDTs一起对SDRS和风险管理计划进行评级。总共有35名(65%)参与者对他们的风险评估进行了评级,25名(47%)参与者完成了他们的风险管理计划。将风险评估与MDT分开评估的参与者更有可能完成SDRS (p = 0.025)并起草风险管理计划(p = 0.003)。当单独评分时,MDT评分者记录的SDRS总分显著高于参与者(p = 0.009)。一系列的曼-惠特尼U测试显示,MDT和参与者在抽象和社会推理、性行为和自残等需要更高技能的问题上的评分存在显著差异。独创性/价值被拘留的参与者将参与他们的动态风险评估和管理计划流程。该研究展示了不同的合作制作方法对参与的影响,并强调了与合作制作有关的未来研究领域。
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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