Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments
01 Mar 2014-British Journal of Psychiatry (Royal College of Psychiatrists)-Vol. 204, Iss: 3, pp 180-187
TL;DR: After controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation and assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base.
Abstract: Background
Rates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.
Aims
To analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.
Method
A systematic search of databases (1995-2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.
Results
Information was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.
Conclusions
After controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.
Citations
More filters
Molde University College1, North Carolina State University2, University of South Florida3, University of Barcelona4, University of New South Wales5, Centre for Mental Health6, National University of La Plata7, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán8, Karolinska Institutet9, Castle Peak Hospital10, University of Southern Denmark11, University of Mons12, Simon Fraser University13, University of Mainz14, Maastricht University15, University of Konstanz16
TL;DR: It is suggested that violence risk assessment is a global phenomenon, as is the use of instruments to assist in this task, and improved feedback following risk assessments and the development of risk management plans could improve the efficacy of health services.
Abstract: Mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess the risk of violence presented by their patients. Prior surveys of risk assessment methods have been largely circumscribed to individual countries and have not compared the practices of different professional disciplines. Therefore, a Web-based survey was developed to examine methods of violence risk assessment across six continents, and to compare the perceived utility of these methods by psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The survey was translated into nine languages and distributed to members of 59 national and international organizations. Surveys were completed by 2135 respondents from 44 countries. Respondents in all six continents reported using instruments to assess, manage, and monitor violence risk, with over half of risk assessments in the past 12 months conducted using such an instrument. Respondents in Asia and South America reported conducting fewer structured assessments, and psychologists reported using instruments more ...
186 citations
TL;DR: These Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults mark a transition in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guidelines by using a “snowball” survey methodology to identify experts on psychiatric evaluation and solicit their input on aspects of the psychiatric evaluation that they saw as likely to improve specific patient outcomes.
Abstract: These Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults mark a transition in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guidelines. Since the publication of the 2011 Institute of Medicine report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, there has been an increasing focus on using clearly defined, transparent processes for rating the quality of evidence and the strength of the overall body of evidence in systematic reviews of the scientific literature. These guidelines were developed using a process intended to be consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (2011), the Principles for theDevelopment of Specialty Society Clinical Guidelines of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (2012), and the requirements of the Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality (AHRQ) for inclusion of a guideline in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Parameters used for the guidelines’ systematic review are included with the full text of the guidelines; the development process is fully described in a document available on the APA website: http:// www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Practice/APA-GuidelineDevelopment-Process–updated-2011-.pdf. To supplement the expertise of members of the guideline work group, we used a “snowball” survey methodology to identify experts on psychiatric evaluation and solicit their input on aspects of the psychiatric evaluation that they saw as likely to improve specific patient outcomes (Yager 2014). Results of this expert survey are included with the full text of the practice guideline.
95 citations
TL;DR: It is found that the new, common STATIC risk categories not only increase concordance of risk classification (from 51% to 72%)—they also allow evaluators to make the same inferences for offenders in the same category regardless of which instrument was used to assign category membership.
Abstract: This article describes principles for developing risk category labels for criterion referenced prediction measures, and demonstrates their utility by creating new risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Currently, risk assessments in corrections and forensic mental health are typically summarized in 1 of 3 words: low, moderate, or high. Although these risk labels have strong influence on decision makers, they are interpreted differently across settings, even among trained professionals. The current article provides a framework for standardizing risk communication by matching (a) the information contained in risk tools to (b) a broadly applicable classification of "riskiness" that is independent of any particular offender risk scale. We found that the new, common STATIC risk categories not only increase concordance of risk classification (from 51% to 72%)-they also allow evaluators to make the same inferences for offenders in the same category regardless of which instrument was used to assign category membership. More generally, we argue that the risk categories should be linked to the decisions at hand, and that risk communication can be improved by grounding these risk categories in evidence-based definitions. (PsycINFO Database Record
81 citations
Cites background from "Rates of violence in patients class..."
...There are currently hundreds of different offender risk tools used worldwide (Singh et al., 2014), each with its own interpretive categories....
[...]
TL;DR: It is found that the evidence base for forensic-psychiatric practice is weak though there is some evidence to suggest that psychiatric care produces better outcomes than criminal justice detention only.
Abstract: Forensic psychiatry in Europe is a specialty primarily concerned with individuals who have either offended or present a risk of doing so, and who also suffer from a psychiatric condition. These mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) are often cared for in secure psychiatric environments or prisons. In this guidance paper we first present on overview of the field of forensic psychiatry from a European perspective. We then present a review of the literature summarising the evidence on the assessment and treatment of MDOs under the following headings: The role of the forensic psychiatrist as an expert witness, risk assessment, treatment settings for MDOs, and effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions. We undertook a rapid review of the literature with search terms related to: forensic psychiatry, review articles, randomised controlled trials and best practice. We searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library databases from 2000 onwards for adult groups only. We scrutinised publications for additional relevant literature, and searched the websites of relevant professional organisations for policies, statements or guidance of interest. We present the findings of the scientific literature as well as recommendations for best practice drawing additionally from the guidance documents identified. We found that the evidence base for forensic-psychiatric practice is weak though there is some evidence to suggest that psychiatric care produces better outcomes than criminal justice detention only. Practitioners need to follow general psychiatric guidance as well as that for offenders, adapted for the complex needs of this patient group, paying particular attention to long-term detention and ethical issues.
71 citations
Cites background from "Rates of violence in patients class..."
...The need to be cautious in the use of risk assessment instruments for individual clinical decisions is compounded by the low and varying base rates for violent recidivism in the local population of which the assessed person is a member and the assessed person is compared with [71]....
[...]
TL;DR: A prediction model in a Swedish prison population that can assist with decision making on release by identifying those who are at low risk of future violent offending, and those at high risk of violent reoffending who might benefit from drug and alcohol treatment is developed.
Abstract: © 2016 Fazel et al. Background: More than 30 million people are released from prison worldwide every year, who include a group at high risk of perpetrating interpersonal violence. Because there is considerable inconsistency and inefficiency in identifying those who would benefit from interventions to reduce this risk, we developed and validated a clinical prediction rule to determine the risk of violent offending in released prisoners. Methods: We did a cohort study of a population of released prisoners in Sweden. Through linkage of population-based registers, we developed predictive models for violent reoffending for the cohort. First, we developed a derivation model to determine the strength of prespecified, routinely obtained criminal history, sociodemographic, and clinical risk factors using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, and then tested them in an external validation. We measured discrimination and calibration for prediction of our primary outcome of violent reoffending at 1 and 2 years using cutoffs of 10% for 1-year risk and 20% for 2-year risk. Findings: We identified a cohort of 47 326 prisoners released in Sweden between 2001 and 2009, with 11 263 incidents of violent reoffending during this period. We developed a 14-item derivation model to predict violent reoffending and tested it in an external validation (assigning 37 100 individuals to the derivation sample and 10 226 to the validation sample). The model showed good measures of discrimination (Harrell's c-index 0·74) and calibration. For risk of violent reoffending at 1 year, sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 73-79) and specificity was 61% (95% CI 60-62). Positive and negative predictive values were 21% (95% CI 19-22) and 95% (95% CI 94-96), respectively. At 2 years, sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 64-69) and specificity was 70% (95% CI 69-72). Positive and negative predictive values were 37% (95% CI 35-39) and 89% (95% CI 88-90), respectively. Of individuals with a predicted risk of violent reoffending of 50% or more, 88% had drug and alcohol use disorders. We used the model to generate a simple, web-based, risk calculator (OxRec) that is free to use. Interpretation: We have developed a prediction model in a Swedish prison population that can assist with decision making on release by identifying those who are at low risk of future violent offending, and those at high risk of violent reoffending who might benefit from drug and alcohol treatment. Further assessments in other populations and countries are needed. Funding: Wellcome Trust, the Swedish Research Council, and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.
68 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies is presented and tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interob server agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics.
Abstract: This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.
64,109 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1974TL;DR: The authors described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: representativeness, availability of instances or scenarios, and adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
Abstract: This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
31,082 citations
2,842 citations
TL;DR: The c statistic, or area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, achieved popularity in diagnostic testing, in which the test characteristics of sensitivity and specificity are relevant to discriminating diseased versus nondiseased patients, may not be optimal in assessing models that predict future risk or stratify individuals into risk categories.
Abstract: The c statistic, or area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, achieved popularity in diagnostic testing, in which the test characteristics of sensitivity and specificity are relevant to discriminating diseased versus nondiseased patients. The c statistic, however, may not be optimal in assessing models that predict future risk or stratify individuals into risk categories. In this setting, calibration is as important to the accurate assessment of risk. For example, a biomarker with an odds ratio of 3 may have little effect on the c statistic, yet an increased level could shift estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk for an individual patient from 8% to 24%, which would lead to different treatment recommendations under current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Accepted risk factors such as lipids, hypertension, and smoking have only marginal impact on the c statistic individually yet lead to more accurate reclassification of large proportions of patients into higher-risk or lower-risk categories. Perfectly calibrated models for complex disease can, in fact, only achieve values for the c statistic well below the theoretical maximum of 1. Use of the c statistic for model selection could thus naively eliminate established risk factors from cardiovascular risk prediction scores. As novel risk factors are discovered, sole reliance on the c statistic to evaluate their utility as risk predictors thus seems ill-advised.
1,815 citations
TL;DR: Federal Abortion Policy and Politics: 1973-1996 Why is Abortion Such a Controversial issue in the United States Barriers to Access to Abortion Services The Impact of Anti-abortion Activities on Women Seeking Abortions
Abstract: Federal Abortion Policy and Politics: 1973-1996 Why is Abortion Such a Controversial issue in the United States Barriers to Access to Abortion Services The Impact of Anti-abortion Activities on Women Seeking Abortions Black Women and the Question of Abortion Latinos and Abortion Abortion and Asian Pacific Islander Americans The Acceptability of Medical Abortion to Women Understanding the Relationship of Violence Against Women to Unwanted Pregnancy and it's Resolution Testing a Model of the Psychological Consequences of Abortion Men and Abortion: The Gender Politics of Pregnancy Resolution Abortion Among Adolescents A Cognitive Approach to Patient-Centered Abortion Care Abortion Issues in Psychotherapy Bringing Lessons Learned to the United States Improving Access to Abortion Services Abortion Practice, Policy, and Research: Recommendations for the 21st Century
1,564 citations