A Scoping Review of Patient Involvement in Violence Risk Assessment

Author:

Woods Phil1,Dadgardoust Laleh2

Affiliation:

1. Author Affiliations:College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan

2. The Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies, University of Saskatchewan.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective This scoping review aimed to summarize the published literature on patient involvement in violence risk assessment. Two research questions reviewed the extent of patient involvement and what evidence exists. Inclusion Criteria English-language peer-reviewed published articles of any methodology related to violence risk assessment toward others were included. Articles were related to forensic and mental health practice and involve patients directly in the process. Methods Five electronic databases were comprehensively searched, as well as the reference lists of included articles. Both authors reviewed articles for inclusion and extracted data from included articles. Results Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles reported on three approaches to patient engagement in structured violence risk assessment: how patients were involved or experienced the process, using rating scales, and using questions related to patient self-perceived risk. In relation to what evidence existed, four main themes emerged: patient views about risk and their involvement in risk assessment, comparing the predictive accuracy of patient self-rated tools with clinician-rated tools, predictive accuracy of a patient self-rated tool, and comparing risk ratings between patients and clinicians. Conclusions There is a dearth of research published about involving patients in their own risk assessment. Patients report both positive and negative experiences of the process. From cohort-type studies, results have shown that patient self-risk assessment can have a similar predictive ability to the clinician ratings related to adverse violence outcomes. Findings from studies can pave the way for future clinical research around the tools that have been developed thus far.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Reference40 articles.

1. Mental health professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management: A qualitative systematic review;BMC Psychiatry,2021

2. The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment;Crime and Delinquency,2006

3. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework;International Journal of Social Research Methodology,2005

4. Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency;Perceptual and Motor Skills,1959

5. The Short Dynamic Risk Scale (SDRS) vs START: Does either have a relationship with recordings of risk;Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3