丹麦的暴力风险评估实践:一项多学科国家调查

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, LEGAL
L. H. Nielsen, S. Mastrigt, R. Otto, Katharina Seewald, C. Ruiter, M. Rettenberger, K. Reeves, Maria Francisca Rebocho, T. Pham, Robyn Mei Yee Ho, M. Grann, Verónica Godoy-Cervera, J. Folino, M. Doyle, Sarah L. Desmarais, Carolina Condemarin, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, J. Singh
{"title":"丹麦的暴力风险评估实践:一项多学科国家调查","authors":"L. H. Nielsen, S. Mastrigt, R. Otto, Katharina Seewald, C. Ruiter, M. Rettenberger, K. Reeves, Maria Francisca Rebocho, T. Pham, Robyn Mei Yee Ho, M. Grann, Verónica Godoy-Cervera, J. Folino, M. Doyle, Sarah L. Desmarais, Carolina Condemarin, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, J. Singh","doi":"10.1515/sjfs-2015-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With a quadrupling of forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark over the past 20 years, focus on violence risk assessment practices across the country has increased. However, information is lacking regarding Danish risk assessment practice across professional disciplines and clinical settings; little is known about how violence risk assessments are conducted, which instruments are used for what purposes, and how mental health professionals rate their utility and costs. As part of a global survey exploring the application of violence risk assessment across 44 countries, the current study investigated Danish practice across several professional disciplines and settings in which forensic and high-risk mental health patients are assessed and treated. In total, 125 mental health professionals across the country completed the survey. The five instruments that respondents reported most commonly using for risk assessment, risk management planning and risk monitoring were Broset, HCR-20, the START, the PCL-R, and the PCL:SV. Whereas the HCR-20 was rated highest in usefulness for risk assessment, the START was rated most useful for risk management and risk monitoring. No significant differences in utility were observed across professional groups. Unstructured clinical judgments were reported to be faster but more expensive to conduct than using a risk assessment instrument. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":41138,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Science","volume":"69 1","pages":"103 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Violence Risk Assessment Practices in Denmark: A Multidisciplinary National Survey\",\"authors\":\"L. H. Nielsen, S. Mastrigt, R. Otto, Katharina Seewald, C. Ruiter, M. Rettenberger, K. Reeves, Maria Francisca Rebocho, T. Pham, Robyn Mei Yee Ho, M. Grann, Verónica Godoy-Cervera, J. Folino, M. Doyle, Sarah L. Desmarais, Carolina Condemarin, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, J. Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sjfs-2015-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract With a quadrupling of forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark over the past 20 years, focus on violence risk assessment practices across the country has increased. However, information is lacking regarding Danish risk assessment practice across professional disciplines and clinical settings; little is known about how violence risk assessments are conducted, which instruments are used for what purposes, and how mental health professionals rate their utility and costs. As part of a global survey exploring the application of violence risk assessment across 44 countries, the current study investigated Danish practice across several professional disciplines and settings in which forensic and high-risk mental health patients are assessed and treated. In total, 125 mental health professionals across the country completed the survey. The five instruments that respondents reported most commonly using for risk assessment, risk management planning and risk monitoring were Broset, HCR-20, the START, the PCL-R, and the PCL:SV. Whereas the HCR-20 was rated highest in usefulness for risk assessment, the START was rated most useful for risk management and risk monitoring. No significant differences in utility were observed across professional groups. Unstructured clinical judgments were reported to be faster but more expensive to conduct than using a risk assessment instrument. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Science\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"103 - 110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjfs-2015-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjfs-2015-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在过去的20年里,丹麦的法医精神病患者翻了两番,全国范围内对暴力风险评估实践的关注有所增加。然而,缺乏关于丹麦跨专业学科和临床环境的风险评估实践的信息;暴力风险评估是如何进行的,哪些工具用于什么目的,以及精神卫生专业人员如何评估其效用和成本,这些都知之甚少。作为一项探索在44个国家实施暴力风险评估的全球调查的一部分,目前的研究调查了丹麦在几个专业学科和环境中的做法,在这些学科和环境中对法医和高风险精神健康患者进行评估和治疗。全国共有125名心理健康专家完成了这项调查。受访者报告最常用于风险评估、风险管理计划和风险监测的五种工具是Broset、HCR-20、START、PCL- r和PCL:SV。虽然HCR-20在风险评估方面的有用性被评为最高,但START在风险管理和风险监测方面被评为最有用。在专业人群中,效用没有显著差异。据报道,非结构化临床判断比使用风险评估工具更快,但成本更高。对临床实践的影响进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Violence Risk Assessment Practices in Denmark: A Multidisciplinary National Survey
Abstract With a quadrupling of forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark over the past 20 years, focus on violence risk assessment practices across the country has increased. However, information is lacking regarding Danish risk assessment practice across professional disciplines and clinical settings; little is known about how violence risk assessments are conducted, which instruments are used for what purposes, and how mental health professionals rate their utility and costs. As part of a global survey exploring the application of violence risk assessment across 44 countries, the current study investigated Danish practice across several professional disciplines and settings in which forensic and high-risk mental health patients are assessed and treated. In total, 125 mental health professionals across the country completed the survey. The five instruments that respondents reported most commonly using for risk assessment, risk management planning and risk monitoring were Broset, HCR-20, the START, the PCL-R, and the PCL:SV. Whereas the HCR-20 was rated highest in usefulness for risk assessment, the START was rated most useful for risk management and risk monitoring. No significant differences in utility were observed across professional groups. Unstructured clinical judgments were reported to be faster but more expensive to conduct than using a risk assessment instrument. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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