Maria Leitner

A systematic review of prevention and intervention strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: update 2002-8.

BACKGROUND It has been estimated that violence accounts for more than 1.6 million deaths worldwide each year and these fatal assaults represent only a fraction of all assaults that actually occur. The problem has widespread consequences for the individual and for the wider society in physical, psychological, social and economic terms. A wide range of pharmacological, psychosocial and organisational interventions have been developed with the aim of addressing the problem. This review was designed to examine the effectiveness of these interventions when they are developed in mental health and criminal justice populations. OBJECTIVE To update a previous review that examined the evidence base up to 2002 for a wide range of pharmacological, psychosocial and organisational interventions aimed at reducing violence, and to identify the key variables associated with a significant reduction in violence. DATA SOURCES Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO (CSA) MEDLINE (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), British Nursing Index/Royal College of Nursing, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)/International ERIC, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane reviews, other reviews, clinical trials, methods studies, technology assessments, economic evaluations), Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)]. REVIEW METHODS The assessment was carried out according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews, including identification of studies, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction and appropriate analysis. Studies were included in meta-analyses (MAs) if they followed a randomised control trial (RCT) design and reported data that could be converted into odds ratios (ORs). For each MA, both a fixed-effects model and a random-effects model were fitted, and both Q statistic and I2 estimates of heterogeneity were performed. RESULTS A total of 198 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria; of these, 51 (26%) were RCTs. Bivariate analyses exploring possible sources of variance in whether a study reported a statistically significant result or not, identified six variables with a significant association. An outcome was less likely to be positive if the primary intervention was something other than a psychological or pharmacological intervention, the study was conducted in an penal institution, the comparator was another active treatment or treatment as usual and if a between-groups design had been used. An outcome was more likely to be positive if it was conducted with people with a mental disorder. The variation attributable to these variables when added to a binary logistic regression was not large (Cox and Snell R(2) = 0.12), but not insignificant given the small number of variables included. The pooled results of all included RCTs suggested a statistically significant advantage for interventions over the various comparators [OR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.65, fixed effects; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49 random effects, 40 studies]. However, there was high heterogeneity {I(2) = 86, Q = 279 [degrees of freedom (df) = 39], p < 0.0001}, indicating the need for caution in interpreting the observed effect. Analysis by subgroups showed that most results followed a similar pattern, with statistically significant advantages of treatments over comparators being suggested in fixed- and/or random-effects models but in the context of large heterogeneity. Three exceptions were atypical antipsychotic drugs [OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.27, fixed effects; OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.43, random effects; 10 studies, I(2) = 72.2, Q = 32.4 (df = 9), p < 0.0001], psychological interventions [OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83, fixed effects; OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93, random effects; nine studies, I(2) = 62.1, Q = 21.1 (df = 8), p = 0.007] and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as a primary intervention [OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88, fixed effects; OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.99, random effects; seven studies, I(2) = 21.6, Q = 7.65 (df = 6), p = 0.26]. LIMITATIONS The heterogenity of the included studies inhibits both robust MA and the clear application of findings to establishing improvements in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS Results from this review show small-to-moderate effects for CBT, for all psychological interventions combined, and larger effects for atypical antipsychotic drugs, with relatively low heterogeneity. There is also evidence that interventions targeted at mental health populations, and particularly male groups in community settings, are well supported, as they are more likely to achieve stronger effects than interventions with the other groups. Future work should focus on improving the quality of evidence available and should address the issue of heterogenity in the literature. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Research for Patient Benefit programme.

A systematic review of risk assessment strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: update 2002-8.

BACKGROUND This review systematically examines the research literature published in the period 2002-8 on structured violence risk assessment instruments designed for use in mental health services or the criminal justice system. It adopted much broader inclusion criteria than previous reviews in the same area in order to capture and summarise data on the widest possible range of available instruments. OBJECTIVES To address two questions: (1) what study characteristics are associated with a risk assessment instrument score being significantly associated with a violent outcome? and (2) which risk assessment instruments have the highest level of predictive validity for a violent outcome? DATA SOURCES Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge. REVIEW METHODS Inclusion criteria for studies were (1) evaluation of a structured risk tool; (2) outcome measure of interpersonal violence; (3) participants aged 17 years or over; and (4) participants with a mental disorder and/or at least one offence and/or at least one indictable offence. A series of bivariate analyses using either a chi-squared test or Spearmans rank-order correlation were conducted to explore associations between study characteristics and outcomes. Data from a subset of studies reporting area under the curve (AUC) analysis were combined to provide estimates of mean validity. RESULTS For the overall set of included studies (n = 959), over three-quarters (77%) were conducted in the USA, Canada or the UK. Two-thirds of all studies were conducted with offenders who had either no formal mental health diagnosis (43%) or forensic samples with a formal diagnosis (25%). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was tested in the largest number of studies (n = 192). Most studies (78%) reported a statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship between the instrument score and a violent outcome. Prospective data collection (chi-squared = 4.4, p = 0.035), number of people recruited (U = 27.8, p = 0.012) and number of participants at end point (U = 26.9, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with predictive validity. For those instruments tested in five or more studies reporting AUC values, the General Statistical Information on Recidivism instrument had the highest mean AUC (0.73). LIMITATIONS Agreement between pairs of reviewers in the initial pilot exercises was good but less than perfect, so discrepancies may be present given the complexity and subjectivity of some aspects of violence research. Only five of the seven calendar years (2003-7) are completely covered, with partial coverage of 2002 and 2008. There is no weighting for sample or effect sizes when results from studies are aggregated. CONCLUSIONS A very large number of studies examining the relationship between a structured instrument and a violent outcome were published in this relatively short 7-year period. The general quality of the literature is weak in places (e.g. over-reliance on cross-sectional designs) and a vast range of distinct instruments have been tested to varying degrees. However, there is evidence of some convergence around a small number of high-performing instruments and identification of the components of a high-quality evaluation approach, including AUC analysis. The upper limits (AUC ≥ 0.85) of instrument-based prediction have probably been achieved and are unlikely to be exceeded using instruments alone. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Research for Patient Benefit programmes.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using class A drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND The societal costs of problematic class A drug use in England and Wales exceed £15B; drug-related crime accounts for almost 90% of costs. Diversion plus treatment and/or aftercare programmes may reduce drug-related crime and costs. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare for class A drug-using offenders, compared with no diversion. POPULATION Adult class A drug-using offenders diverted to treatment or an aftercare programme for their drug use. INTERVENTIONS Programmes to identify and divert problematic drug users to treatment (voluntary, court mandated or monitored services) at any point within the criminal justice system (CJS). Aftercare follows diversion and treatment, excluding care following prison or non-diversionary drug treatment. DATA SOURCES Thirty-three electronic databases and government online resources were searched for studies published between January 1985 and January 2012, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science. Bibliographies of identified studies were screened. The UK Drug Data Warehouse, the UK Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study and published statistics and reports provided data for the economic evaluation. METHODS Included studies evaluated diversion in adult class A drug-using offenders, in contact with the CJS. The main outcomes were drug use and offending behaviour, and these were pooled using meta-analysis. The economic review included full economic evaluations for adult opiate and/or crack, or powder, cocaine users. An economic decision analytic model, estimated incremental costs per unit of outcome gained by diversion and aftercare, over a 12-month time horizon. The perspectives included the CJS, NHS, social care providers and offenders. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis explored variance in parameter estimates, longer time horizons and structural uncertainty. RESULTS Sixteen studies met the effectiveness review inclusion criteria, characterised by poor methodological quality, with modest sample sizes, high attrition rates, retrospective data collection, limited follow-up, no random allocation and publication bias. Most study samples comprised US methamphetamine users. Limited meta-analysis was possible, indicating a potential small impact of diversion interventions on reducing drug use [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.53 for reduced primary drug use, and OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.98 for reduced use of other drugs]. The cost-effectiveness review did not identify any relevant studies. The economic evaluation indicated high uncertainty because of variance in data estimates and limitations in the model design. The primary analysis was unclear whether or not diversion was cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses indicated some scenarios where diversion may be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS Nearly all participants (99.6%) in the effectiveness review were American (Californian) methamphetamine users, limiting transfer of conclusions to the UK. Data and methodological limitations mean it is unclear whether or not diversion is effective or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS High-quality evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion schemes is sparse and does not relate to the UK. Importantly this research identified a range of methodological limitations in existing evidence. These highlight the need for research to conceptualise, define and develop models of diversion programmes and identify a core outcome set. A programme of feasibility, pilot and definitive trials, combined with process evaluation and qualitative research is recommended to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversionary interventions in class A drug-using offenders. FUNDING DETAILS The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Longitudinal Trends in Using Physical Interventions to Manage Aggression and Self-Harm in Mental Health Services

OBJECTIVES Repetitive aggression by a patient receiving mental health inpatient care is likely to elicit various patterns of response from care staff over time. This study sought to examine patterns of coercive physical intervention in relation to repeated episodes of aggression by particular patients. METHODS A data set of 9,945 aggression and self-harm incidents over a five-year period in one mental health service in England was constructed. Incidents by a specific individual were categorized according to their position in a sequence (first, second, and so on) and by the use of physical intervention by staff to manage the incident. RESULTS Trends in the use of physical intervention varied across settings. There was a significant tendency in general (nonforensic) services for use of physical intervention to increase in response to physical aggression (physical intervention in first versus subsequent incidents: odds ratio [OR]=.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.54-.90) and to decrease in response to threats (physical intervention in first threat versus subsequent threats: OR=1.62, CI=1.09-2.39). CONCLUSION There were significant trends over time in the use of physical intervention to manage violence and self-harm. However, the dynamics behind this finding will remain unclear without further research.

Do older people who self‐harm receive the hospital care they need?

Although self‐harm is most common in younger people in Britain, the risk of suicide subsequent to an initial act of self‐harm is considerably greater in older age groups. Four characteristics have been shown to be associated with increased vulnerability in older people who self‐harm: increased suicidal intent, physical illness, mental illness and social isolation. This paper is part of a broader analysis of all self‐harm presentations to a British hospital accident and emergency department over a five‐year period. It examines the prevalence of these vulnerability indicators in patients aged 65 or over, and considers whether greater vulnerability in older patients is reflected in their clinical management within the hospital and in community support planning on discharge.At the first presentation older patients (n=91) exhibited greater vulnerability than did younger patients (n=2,326). Despite this, we found no evidence that older self‐harm patients were any more likely than younger patients to routinely receive either a psychosocial assessment from a member of staff with specialist mental health training, or community aftercare planning on discharge from the hospital. This study lends weight to recently published national guidelines recommending that all acts of self‐harm in older people be regarded as evidence of serious suicidal intent at the outset.

The effectiveness of diversion programmes for offenders using Class A drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Aims: To review existing evidence on effectiveness of community-based diversion programmes for Class A drug-using offenders. Methods: 31 databases were searched for studies published 1985–2012 (update search 2012–2016) involving community-based Criminal Justice System diversion of Class A drug users via voluntary or court-mandated treatment. Findings: 16 studies were initially included (US, 10; UK, 4; Canada, 1; Australia, 1). There was evidence for a small impact of diversion to treatment on drug use reduction (primary Class A drug use: OR 1.68, CI 1.12–2.53; other drug use: OR 2.60, 1.70–3.98). Class A drug users were less likely to complete treatment (OR 0.90, 0.87–0.94) than users of other drugs. There was uncertainty surrounding results for offending, which were not pooled due to lack of outcome measure comparability and heterogeneity. Individual studies pointed to a minor effect of diversion on offending. Findings remained unchanged following an update review (evidence up to March 2016: US, 3; Australia, 1). Conclusions: Treatment accessed via community-based diversion is effective at reducing drug use in Class A drug-using offenders. Evidence of a reduction in offending amongst this group as a result of diversion is uncertain. Poor methodological quality and data largely limited to US methamphetamine users limits available evidence.