• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    • Settings
    • Prisons and Other Secure Settings
    • Secure Settings
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    • Settings
    • Prisons and Other Secure Settings
    • Secure Settings
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of EMERCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Links

    About EMERPoliciesDerbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation TrustLeicester Partnership TrustNHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCGNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustSherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals Of Leicester NHS TrustOther Resources

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Violence risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Ogonah 2023 1-10.pdf
    Size:
    547.5Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Whiting, Daniel
    Keyword
    Violence
    Psychiatric hospitals
    Prisons
    Risk assessment
    Date
    2023
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    10.1016/s2215-0366(23)00256-0
    Publisher's URL
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(23)00256-0/fulltext
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: Although structured tools have been widely used to predict violence risk in specialist mental health settings, there is uncertainty about the extent and quality of evidence of their predictive performance. We aimed to systematically review the predictive performance of tools used to assess violence risk in forensic mental health, where they are routinely administered. METHODS: In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched four databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and Global Health) from database inception to Nov 1, 2022, to identify studies examining the predictive performance of risk assessment tools in people discharged from forensic (secure) mental health hospitals. Systematic and narrative reviews were excluded from the review. Performance measures and descriptive statistics were extracted from published reports. A quality assessment was performed for each study using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted on the performance of instruments that were independently externally validated with a sample size greater than 100. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022304716. FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review of 50 eligible publications, assessing the predictive performance of 36 tools, providing data for 10 460 participants (88% men, 12% women; median age [from 47 studies] was 35 years, IQR 33-38) from 12 different countries. Post-discharge interpersonal violence and crime was most often measured by new criminal offences or recidivism (47 [94%] of 50 studies); only three studies used informant or self-report data on physical aggression or violent behaviour. Overall, the predictive performance of risk assessment tools was mixed. Most studies reported one discrimination metric, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); other key performance measures such as calibration, sensitivity, and specificity were not presented. Most studies had a high risk of bias (49 [98%] of 50), partly due to poor analytical approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted for violent recidivism on 29 independent external validations from 19 studies with at least 100 patients. Pooled AUCs for predicting violent outcomes ranged from 0·72 (0·65-0·79; I(2)=0%) for H10, to 0·69 for the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 version 2 (95% CI 0·65-0·72; I(2)=0%) and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (0·63-0·75; I(2)=0%), to 0·64 for the Static-99 (0·53-0·73; I(2)=45%). INTERPRETATION: Current violence risk assessment tools in forensic mental health have mixed evidence of predictive performance. Forensic mental health services should review their use of current risk assessment tools and consider implementing those with higher-quality evidence in support. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.
    Citation
    Ogonah, M. G. T., Seyedsalehi, A., Whiting, D., Fazel, S. & (2023). Violence risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Psychiatry, 10 (10), pp.780-789.
    Type
    Article
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/17884
    Note
    © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
    Collections
    Secure Settings

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.