Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:05:07.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Authors' reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Nadine Troquete
Affiliation:
Rob Giel Research Center, University Centre for Psychiatry, University Medical Centre Groningen, CC72, PO Box 30.001 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Email: N.A.C.Troquete@umcg.nl
Rob H. S. van den Brink
Affiliation:
Research Center, University Medical Center Groningen
Harry Beintema
Affiliation:
Mental Health Organisation Lentis and Forensic Psychiatric Clinic dr S. van Mesdag, Groningen
Tamara Mulder
Affiliation:
Mental Health Organisations Drenthe, Assen
Titus W. D. P. van Os
Affiliation:
Mental Health Organisations Friesland, Leeuwarden
Robert A. Schoevers
Affiliation:
Rob Giel Research Center, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
Durk Wiersma
Affiliation:
Rob Giel Research Center, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013 

We agree with Wand & Large that there currently is very limited support for the use of structured risk assessment instruments as a method for violence prevention. So far only a small number of studies, four including our own, examined this issue. It is troubling that most research efforts seem to focus on the development of new risk assessment instruments and establishing their psychometric properties, rather than on testing the effectiveness of existing instruments. Although identification of predictors and development of instruments are crucial steps in the maturation of both risk assessment and forensic psychiatry, the field needs to move beyond these issues.

The most important risk and protective factors associated with recidivism have by now been established and are agreed on by the research community. There is no disputing the existence of correlations between mental illness, substance misuse, client well-being, quality of life and recidivism. That is why all, or a considerable selection of these factors, are commonly included in risk assessment instruments.Reference Webster, Douglas, Eaves and Hart1-Reference de Vogel, de Ruiter, van Beek and Mead3 It seems it is time to move forward and start investigating the benefits of risk assessment instruments and their contribution to more effective treatment interventions in terms of reduction of criminal and violent behaviour. As we ourselves have experienced, introducing randomised trials in clinical practice is difficult, but it can be done, and is an essential step before implementation can be advocated.

A definitive answer about the contribution of structured risk assessment to violence prevention cannot be given at this time. The first signs are not good. The four available studies find either no significant reduction of violent outcome, or the interpretation of their findings is problematic due to differences between study groups at baseline. Differences in clinical setting of the various studies further complicate the integration of findings. Our own data were collected in a community-based forensic mental health setting. In contrast, the other three studies were completed in acute psychiatric (admission) wards. These two settings service different populations, making comparisons less straightforward. It is too early for a proper systematic review on this subject, but the overall picture is not yet convincingly in favour of changing treatment policies by systematically employing structured risk assessment in clinical care.

On the other hand, our paper also shows that proper implementation in clinical care depends on personnel and organisational factors that need to be addressed in a coherent and persistent way before meaningful results can be obtained. The implementation of a randomised controlled trial has its particular challenges, but so does changing clinical practice in and of itself.Reference Forsner, Hansson, Brommels, Wistedt and Forsell4 As researchers, we may sometimes underestimate this gap between scientific evidence and the changes necessary in clinical practice for the implementation of evidence-based interventions. In order to reach the ultimate goal of prevention and to determine whether structured risk assessment may contribute, more studies are needed that assess the results of properly implemented and already established instruments in different forms of forensic care.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

H.B., T.M. and T.W.D.P.v.O. are the department heads of the clinics where the RACE study was conducted. The study was financially supported by various sources (the University, participating mental health organisations, and national medical research council).

References

1 Webster, CD Douglas, KS Eaves, D Hart, S HCR-20: Assessing the Risk of Violence. Version 2. Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia, 1997.Google Scholar
2 Nicholls, TL Brink, J Desmarais, SL Webster, CD Martin, ML The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): a prospective validation study in a forensic psychiatric sample. In Essential Writing in Violence Risk Assessment and Management (eds Bloom, H Webster, CD). Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, 2007.Google Scholar
3 de Vogel, V de Ruiter, C van Beek, D Mead, G Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a Dutch sample of treated sex offenders. Law Hum Behav 2004; 28: 235–51.Google Scholar
4 Forsner, T Hansson, J Brommels, M Wistedt, AA Forsell, Y Implementing clinical guidelines in psychiatry: a qualitative study of perceived facilitators and barriers. BMC Psychiatry 2010; 10: 8.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.