Drawing upon the evidence to develop a multiagency risk assessment and risk management framework for domestic violence

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Lamb ◽  
Kirsty Forsdike ◽  
Cathy Humphreys ◽  
Kelsey Hegarty
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk

Domestic violence poses a threat to the health, safety and wellbeing of women internationally and is associated with a range of physical injuries, chronic mental and physical health issues and death. In recognition of the serious consequences and to guide the allocation of resources, multiple countries have invested in efforts to measure domestic violence risk. This study aimed to determine whether there was an existing validated risk assessment tool with an actuarial element, or a common set of evidence-based risk factors that could be implemented in Victoria, Australia. A tool was sought which would effectively predict risk of severity, lethality and re-assault and support risk management strategies. The tool needed to be suitable for administration by a variety of professionals. Through an audit and analysis of existing tools, the study found an absence of universal standards or guidance for weighting actuarial tools and clear insight into how risk assessments currently inform risk management practice and multidisciplinary responses. However, the literature provides clarity around the key evidence-based risk factors that most commonly form a validated tool for adult victim survivors. The evidence was less definitive in terms of assessing risk of lethality and re-assault for children and young people.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>There has been considerable investment in approaches to measure domestic violence risk.</li><br /><li>Some consistency exists in terms of evidence-based risk factors across existing risk assessment tools.</li><br /><li>There is an absence of universal standards for weighting actuarial tools as well as guidance to inform a response by a broad range of professionals.</li></ul>

scholarly journals VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT IN PSYCHIATRY - LITERATURE REVIEW AND PRACTICE COMPARISON BETWEEN LATVIA AND GERMANY

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 357-367
Author(s):  
Karina Konstantinova ◽  
Alina Kuznecova
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Community Violence ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offenders ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment

Evidence-based future community violence risk assessment is a crucial issue in psychiatry. It is a cornerstone of safeguarding the rights of persons with mental health issues. Authors aimed to analyse the modern methods of risk assessment in psychiatry and the current practice and legal framework. Authors undertook a scoped review of the literature with search terms related to future community violence risk prediction for mentally disordered offenders in Latvian, English, German, and Russian languages. Main difficulties in future community violence risk assessment are demonstrated via Latvia’s court decisions analysis. Marked differences were identified: there are no standardized methods available/registered in Latvia, therefore risks assessment is performed via clinical assessment only. In Germany, the risk assessment is performed via structured evidence – based risk assessment tools and clinical assessment; nevertheless, the choice of the assessment tool remains challenging.  

scholarly journals The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF): A Meta-Analysis of its Reliability and Predictive Validity

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Burghart ◽  
Corine de Ruiter ◽  
Sophia E. Hynes ◽  
Nishant Krishnan ◽  
Yara Levtova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Random Effects Models

Although the inclusion of protective factors in risk assessment is believed to improve prediction, most risk assessment tools emphasize risk factors. One tool that attempts to balance risk factors with protective factors is the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF). The SAPROF focuses exclusively on protective factors and is used in conjunction with a structured risk assessment tool. It has received increasing attention from both researchers and forensic mental health practitioners in recent years. To assess its psychometric performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of validation studies using random effects models. Our final sample included 22 studies with 3,216 subjects from 12 countries. Overall, the SAPROF showed good interrater reliability and moderate to good predictive performance for desistance from violence in terms of institutional misconduct and community recidivism. The instrument also exhibited incremental validity when used in conjunction with the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20). Despite these promising results, this meta-analysis also uncovered several shortcomings in current research on the SAPROF. Studies did not report data on calibration, thus failing to capture the full picture of the SAPROF’s predictive performance. Moreover, risk of bias across studies was high and findings are mostly restricted to male samples. Directions for future research and recommendations for the use of the SAPROF are offered.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ Perceptions of the Implementation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) on an Inpatient Forensic Unit

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Domjancic ◽  
Treena Wilkie ◽  
Shaheen Darani ◽  
Brittney Williams ◽  
Bandhana Maheru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Exploratory Research ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Consensus Scoring ◽  
Additional Value

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) is an assessment tool that examines protective factors when assessing for violence risk. There is limited research on clinicians’ perceptions of the use and implementation of risk assessment tools, and this study aimed to examine the experiences of clinicians using the SAPROF in a low secure forensic rehabilitation inpatient unit in Canada. An exploratory research design was used, and five clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed using a thematic approach and three central themes were identified: understanding of the patient from a strengths-based point of view, providing clinicians with a focus on how to help the patient, and bringing in opportunities to collaborate as a team. The findings highlight the additional value of the SAPROF as tool in helping forensic teams to adopt strengths based approaches to risk assessment, enhancing treatment planning and inter-professional collaboration.   Keywords: strengths, risk assessment, SAPROF, consensus scoring, recovery

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool to Identify Infected Adults and Adolescents >14 years at Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract Background There are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Creating a Tool for Assessing Domestic Violence Risk and Impact Among TANF Clients

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan J. Steiner ◽  
Laura Johnson ◽  
Andrea Hetling ◽  
Hsiu-Fen Lin ◽  
Judy L. Postmus
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Emotional Health ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Policy And Practice

The Family Violence Option (FVO), a provision of the 1996 welfare legislation, allows states to waive certain program requirements for domestic violence (DV) survivors in order to protect them from danger or penalties. The absence of a standardized method for assessing risk and impact has been an impediment to states’ use of the FVO, particularly in the granting of waivers. The purpose of this study was to address this limitation by developing and testing a risk and impact assessment tool for DV survivors applying for waivers under the FVO. Therefore, a collaborative effort between state administrators and researchers was formed which included input from welfare staff and DV advocates. Background research included reviews of validated risk assessments and FVO policies, as well as primary data from focus groups and surveys with staff from the state human services organization, county welfare agencies, and DV organizations. A tool was then created with 131 questions covering demographics, abuse experiences, partner access and risk, perceptions of safety, and emotional health, and piloted in four counties. Two hundred and thirty-seven completed assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics, principal component analysis, and feedback from assessors. The final tool (n= 95 items) was informed by validated evidence and frontline practice wisdom, recommended to improve FVO utilization and survivor outcomes. From this study, the authors recommend that other states seeking changes to their FVO risk assessment policy and practice explore collaborative partnerships between practitioners and researchers in order to make decisions informed by best practices and systematic research. They should also pursue cross departmental training of risk assessment tools to prevent a siloed approach to FVO implementation.

Evaluating Violence Risk in Children and Adolescents

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Borum
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Developmental Context ◽  
Emergency Workers ◽  
Behavioral Emergencies

Emergency workers and behavioral health professionals who work in crisis or emergency settings should understand the fundamentals of assessing and managing violence risk in children and adolescents, but violence potential must be considered in its developmental context. This chapter presents an approach for assessing violence risk among youth in the context of behavioral emergencies. It begins with a brief discussion of the developmental context for risk assessment and how to think about violent outcomes among children and adolescents. Then, it covers the information an evaluator would need to collect, how to collect it, and how to reach a sound decision about a youth’s risk level. It encourages evaluators in emergency or crisis settings to rely on evidence-based risk factors, while also applying individualized formulations to give texture to the assessments and to the subsequent forecasts about the nature and degree of risk for violence.

scholarly journals Domestic Violence Risk Assessment and Case Documentation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne Mela ◽  
Jarmo Houtsonen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Case Documentation ◽  
Domestic Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence Prevention ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Assessment Procedures

Risk assessment is a cornerstone of domestic violence prevention and intervention. From the front-line responders' perspective, risk assessment constitutes a process that starts from identifying the factors increasing the likelihood of violence and then continues to plan safety measures to manage the sources of risks and prevent the recurrence of violence. To address some of the shortcomings related to the risk assessment of domestic violence, the IMPRODOVA project developed a Risk Assessment Integration Module, RAIMO. The overall purpose of RAIMO is to bridge the gaps between different risk assessment tools and professional perspectives and thereby to generate a shared understanding of risk assessment in multiprofessional and cooperative contexts. While RAIMO can be utilised in learning, teaching and as a databank, in this chapter, we focus on the key aspects and findings in risk assessment research. The chapter also aims to equip front-line responders with applicable information to revise or remodel the existing risk assessment procedures, networks, and tools.

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool To Identify Infected Adults And Adolescents >14 Years At Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract BackgroundThere are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Roadmap Towards an Integrated European Response to Domestic Violence

2021 ◽  
pp. 329-342
Author(s):  
Branko Lobnikar ◽  
Catharina Vogt ◽  
Joachim Kersten
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Case Documentation ◽  
National Comparison ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
Domestic Violence Risk Assessment

The main goal of the IMPRODOVA project was to find ways to optimise domestic violence intervention and prevention. We found that effective cooperation of front-line responders comes from a common understanding of the problem. When trying to understand the phenomenon thoroughly, we realised that cross-national comparison of domestic violence definitions is a complex undertaking, as different countries use varied definitions. Intimate partner violence, domestic violence and family violence are used across all countries to describe the phenomenon. However, we can observe primarily gender-based definitions in all three front-line responders sectors. One of the promising findings of our analyses is that international standards are relatively well implemented in all the partner countries. For better cooperation of all stakeholders, we developed a training platform on domestic violence and supported it by analysing the possibilities of using the digital communication platform for inter-agency collaboration to address domestic violence adequately. Multidisciplinary cooperation across the sectors in risk assessment and case documentation was mentioned by many countries as a favourable objective, resulting in more dynamic and comprehensive risk assessment processes. That leads to developing a risk assessment tool – the Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Integration Module to achieve a more integrated European response to domestic violence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document