A Scoping Review of Patient Involvement in Violence Risk Assessment.

Phil Woods, Laleh Dadgardoust
{"title":"A Scoping Review of Patient Involvement in Violence Risk Assessment.","authors":"Phil Woods, Laleh Dadgardoust","doi":"10.1097/JFN.0000000000000500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者参与暴力风险评估的范围界定审查》。
目的:本综述旨在总结已发表的有关患者参与暴力风险评估的文献。两个研究问题审查了患者参与的程度以及现有的证据:纳入标准:经同行评审发表的英语文章,内容涉及与针对他人的暴力风险评估相关的任何方法。文章应与法医和心理健康实践相关,并让患者直接参与评估过程:全面检索了五个电子数据库以及收录文章的参考文献目录。两位作者对纳入的文章进行了审核,并从纳入的文章中提取了数据:结果:15 篇文章符合纳入标准。文章报告了患者参与结构化暴力风险评估的三种方法:患者如何参与或体验评估过程、使用评分量表以及使用与患者自我感知风险相关的问题。就现有证据而言,出现了四大主题:患者对风险的看法及其参与风险评估的情况、比较患者自评工具与临床医生评定工具的预测准确性、患者自评工具的预测准确性以及比较患者与临床医生之间的风险评级:关于让患者参与自身风险评估的研究还很缺乏。患者在评估过程中既有积极的体验,也有消极的体验。队列式研究结果表明,患者自我风险评估与临床医生对不良暴力后果的评级具有相似的预测能力。研究结果可以为今后围绕迄今为止开发的工具开展临床研究铺平道路。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Elder Abuse According to the Levels of Social Determinants in Brazil. Increasing Sexual Violence Reporting and Disclosure in Higher Education Institutions: A Proposed Approach to Critically Analyze the Internal Organizational Context. Burnout Reduction Strategies Using Mobile-Based Applications: The Creation and Development of the SANE Well App. ``Getting People Back Into the Community'': Forensic Mental Health Nurses' Perceptions and Experiences of the Recovery Model Within a High-Secure Hospital. A Scoping Review of Patient Involvement in Violence Risk Assessment.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1