To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Translation is embedded in the globalization of literature from the inception of print circulation. From fifteenth-century Western Europe to a world increasingly networked by imperialism in the early nineteenth century, printed translations are not simply reproductions or transferals of original literary texts, but dynamic assemblies of agents. In addition to the author, translator, editor, and publisher, numerous non-human agents including print and book design, but also the intellectual abstractions of world literature and the history of the idea of translation itself are actors in the process. Paradigmatic examples from diverse spatio-temporal zones including Renaissance multilingual translation, colonial translations in North India, and Arabic translations of European literature in the nineteenth century demonstrate that putting a work into a new language is beset with the Eurocentric aesthetics of world literature and reinforced by colonial regulation. At the same time, it challenges a controlled world system with indeterminacy and decentralization. As literary linguistic contacts grow and evolve across the globe in this period, the praxis of translating is not restricted by prescription. More importantly, the ontology of translation is unbound. Rather than belated second acts of literature translations are co-creations with the source.
National guidance cautions against low-intensity interventions for people with personality disorder, but evidence from trials is lacking.
To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of a low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder.
Single-blind, feasibility trial (trial registration: ISRCTN14994755). We recruited people aged 18 or over with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder from mental health services, excluding those with a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder. We randomly allocated participants via a remote system on a 1:1 ratio to six to ten sessions of Structured Psychological Support (SPS) or to treatment as usual. We assessed social functioning, mental health, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care and resource use and costs at baseline and 24 weeks after randomisation.
A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to either SPS (n = 33) or treatment as usual (n = 30). Twenty-nine (88%) of those in the active arm of the trial received one or more session (median 7). Among 46 (73%) who were followed up at 24 weeks, social dysfunction was lower (−6.3, 95% CI −12.0 to −0.6, P = 0.03) and satisfaction with care was higher (6.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 10.4; P = 0.002) in those allocated to SPS. Statistically significant differences were not found in other outcomes. The cost of the intervention was low and total costs over 24 weeks were similar in both groups.
SPS may provide an effective low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and should be tested in fully powered clinical trials.
This chapter discusses the theories of change that relate to how offenders can be assisted to change their offending through treatment. It considers how to promote motivation to engage in treatment and change behaviour. Andrews and Bonta distilled and refined their principles of effective offender treatment into what is known as the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. Theories of motivation for treatment and behaviour change may be described in three main approaches: matching intervention with stage of change; readiness to change; and goal perspectives. The Transtheoretical Model of Change was described first by Prochaska and DiClemente in relation to smoking cessation and was subsequently widely applied in addiction treatment. Ward and colleagues have proposed the Good Lives model (GLM) of offender rehabilitation, which focuses on helping offenders attain satisfaction in a range of life areas rather than focusing purely on reducing risk.
Social problem-solving therapy may be relevant in the treatment of personality disorder, although assessments of its effectiveness are uncommon.
To determine the effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention for adults with personality disorder in the community under conditions resembling routine clinical practice.
Participants were randomly allocated to brief psychoeducation plus 16 problem-solving group sessions (n=87) or to waiting-list control (n=89). Primary outcome was comparison of scores on the Social Problem Solving Inventory and the Social Functioning Questionnaire between intervention and control arms at the conclusion of treatment, on average at 24 weeks after randomisation.
In intention-to-treat analysis, those allocated to intervention showed significantly better problem-solving skills (P < 0.001), higher overall social functioning (P=0.031) and lower anger expression (P=0.039) compared with controls. No significant differences were found on use of services during the intervention period.
Problem-solving plus psychoeducation has potential as a preliminary intervention for adults with personality disorder.
In this paper, we describe the progress of four male, legally-detained personality disordered offenders in a
group treatment programme for angry aggression. “Controlling angry aggression” is a 15-session, structured, cognitive-behavioural programme that is part of a wider integrated, multidisciplinary treatment programme run within a
specialist personality disorder treatment unit. Psychometric tests showed that three of the four patients improved over
the course of the treatment programme. Behaviour ratings of staff and patients concurred, allowing confidence in
patients' self-report of anger. No change in behaviour was evident over time for any patient, but initial low rates of
aggression allowed little room for improvement. Self-monitored anger and aggression scores did vary markedly over
time, and since behaviour remains stable despite anger, this indicates that these patients can control their behaviour.
One patient did not improve, and reasons for this are examined, concluding with a reminder of the need for rigorous
selection of patients for treatment programmes.