W. Swildens

Criminal Victimisation in People with Severe Mental Illness : A Multi-Site Prevalence and Incidence Survey in the Netherlands

Background Although crime victimisation is as prevalent in psychiatric patients as crime perpetration (and possibly more so), few European figures for it are available. We therefore assessed its one-year prevalence and incident rates in Dutch severely mentally ill outpatients, and compared the results with victimisation rates in the general population. Method This multisite epidemiological survey included a random sample of 956 adult severely mentally ill outpatients. Data on victimisation were obtained using the victimisation scale of the Dutch Crime and Victimisation Survey, which assesses crime victimisation over the preceding 12 months. Comparison data were derived from the nationwide survey on safety and victimisation in the Netherlands. Prevalence and incident rates were weighted for sex, age, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and compared with a general population sample matched by region (N = 38,227). Results In the past year, almost half of the severely mentally ill outpatients (47%) had been victim of a crime. After control for demographic differences, prevalence rates of overall and specific victimisation measures were significantly higher in severely mentally ill outpatients than in the general population. The relative rates were especially high for personal crimes such as violent threats (RR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.72–2.61), physical assaults (RR = 4.85, 95% CI: 3.69–6.39) and sexual harassment and assaults (RR = 3.94, 95% CI: 3.05–5.09). In concordance, severely mentally ill outpatients reported almost 14 times more personal crime incidents than persons from the general population (IRR = 13.68, 95% CI: 12.85–14.56). Conclusion Crime victimisation is a serious problem in Dutch severely mentally ill outpatients. Mental-healthcare institutions and clinicians should become aware of their patients’ victimisation risk, and should implement structural measures to detect and prevent (re-)victimisation.

Effectively Working on Rehabilitation Goals: 24-Month Outcome of a Randomized Controlled Trial of the Boston Psychiatric Rehabilitation Approach

Objective: To investigate the effect of the Boston Psychiatric Rehabilitation (PR) Approach on attainment of personal rehabilitation goals, social functioning, empowerment, needs for care, and quality of life in people with severe mental illness (SMI) in the Netherlands. Method: A 24-month, multicentre, randomized controlled trial was used to compare the results of PR to care as usual (CAU). Patients with SMI were randomly assigned by a central randomization centre to PR (n = 80) or CAU (n = 76). The primary outcome of goal attainment was assessed by independent raters blind to treatment allocation. Measures for secondary outcomes were change in work situation and independent living, the Personal Empowerment Scale, the Camberwell Assessment of Needs, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment. Effects were tested at 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed according to intention to treat. Covariates were psychiatric centre, psychopathology, number of care contacts, and educational level of the professionals involved. Results: The rate of goal attainment was substantially higher in PR at 24 months (adjusted risk difference: 21%, 95% CI 4% to 38%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 5). The approach was also more effective in the area of societal participation (PR: 21% adjusted increase, CAU: 0% adjusted increase; NNT = 5) but not in the other secondary outcome measures. Conclusions: The results suggest that PR is effective in supporting patients with SMI to reach self-formulated rehabilitation goals and in enhancing societal participation, although no effects were found on the measures of functioning, need for care, and quality of life.

Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care?

BackgroundThe present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS).MethodsData from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care.ResultsFindings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators.ConclusionsFor research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.

FiRe : Evaluation of a Fidelity Measure to Promote Implementation of Evidence-Based Rehabilitation

Objective: This article describes a measure developed to assess fidelity of working with the Boston University approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) in Dutch mental health care. The instrument is intended to measure and improve BPR adherence and clinician competence on an individual level and within individual rehabilitation processes. Method: Rotating pairs of 4 BPR specialists used Fidelity of Rehabilitation (FiRe) to evaluate the fidelity of BPR as applied in 114 rehabilitation processes. The content of these processes was documented by the 27 rehabilitation practitioners who delivered the approach. Results: Interrater reliability (.66) was good as were correlations between the first and second assessments (.74), also increasing over time. FiRe was able to distinguish those delivering the approach at an expert level from nonexperts, expressing concurrent validity. FiRe was also related to practitioner attitude toward rehabilitation, a possibly similar construct. In this study, the average level of BPR adherence according to our fidelity model was low. During the 10.5-month review period, overall FiRe scores improved slightly, but this effect was not significant. However, practitioners reported that feedback based on FiRe helped them to enhance their skills. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: This first version of FiRe is a valid and reliable instrument with which to gain insight into the quality and fidelity of individual practitioners’ rehabilitation practices. The instrument used in this study will be further developed in line with study results. More importantly, FiRe raises questions about the definition of good BPR, a topic that should be explored more extensively in future research.