Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Taanvi Ramesh (a1), Artemis Igoumenou (a2), Maria Vazquez Montes (a3) and Seena Fazel (a1)

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Violent behaviour by forensic psychiatric inpatients is common. We aimed to systematically review the performance of structured risk assessment tools for violence in these settings.

Methods:

The nine most commonly used violence risk assessment instruments used in psychiatric hospitals were examined. A systematic search of five databases (CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO and PubMed) was conducted to identify studies examining the predictive accuracy of these tools in forensic psychiatric inpatient settings. Risk assessment instruments were separated into those designed for imminent (within 24 hours) violence prediction and those designed for longer-term prediction. A range of accuracy measures and descriptive variables were extracted. A quality assessment was performed for each eligible study using the QUADAS-2. Summary performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve value) and HSROC curves were produced. In addition, meta-regression analyses investigated study and sample effects on tool performance.

Results:

Fifty-two eligible publications were identified, of which 43 provided information on tool accuracy in the form of AUC statistics. These provided data on 78 individual samples, with information on 6,840 patients. Of these, 35 samples (3,306 patients from 19 publications) provided data on all performance measures. The median AUC value for the wider group of 78 samples was higher for imminent tools (AUC 0.83; IQR: 0.71–0.85) compared with longer-term tools (AUC 0.68; IQR: 0.62-0.75). Other performance measures indicated variable accuracy for imminent and longer-term tools. Meta-regression indicated that no study or sample-related characteristics were associated with between-study differences in AUCs.

Interpretation:

The performance of current tools in predicting risk of violence beyond the first few days is variable, and the selection of which tool to use in clinical practice should consider accuracy estimates. For more imminent violence, however, there is evidence in support of brief scalable assessment tools.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an open access article under the CC BY license

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK E-mail address: seena.fazel@psych.ox.ac.uk

References

Hide All
[1]Wildgoose, JBriscoe, MLloyd, KPsychological and emotional problems in staff following assaults by patients. The Psychiatrist 2003;27(8):295–7.
[2]Bowers, LStewart, DPapadopoulos, Cet al.Inpatient violence and aggression: A literature review. Report from the Conflict and Containment Reduction Research Programme 2011, Institute of Psychiatry Kings College London.
[3]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Violence and aggression: short-term management in mental health, health and community settings. NICE Guideline (NG10) ed, In: 2015.
[4]Almvik, RWoods, PRasmussen, KThe Brøset Violence Checklist sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability. Journal of interpersonal violence 2000;15(12):1284–96.
[5]Linaker, OMBusch-Iversen, HPredictors of imminent violence in psychiatric inpatients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1995;92(4):250–4.
[6]Ogloff, JDaffern, MDynamic appraisal of situational aggression: Inpatient version 2002, Monash University and Forensicare Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
[7]Galletly, CCastle, DDark, Fet al.Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2016;50(5):410–72.
[8]Lehman, AFLieberman, JADixon, LBet al.Practice guideline for the treatment of partients with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 161(2 Suppl)2004.
[9]Campbell, MAFrench, SGendreau, PThe prediction of violence in adult offenders a meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2009;36(6):567–90.
[10]Fazel, SSingh, JPDoll, Het al.Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2012; 345:e4692.
[11]Singh, JPGrann, MFazel, SA comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical psychology review 2011;31(3):4995–13.
[12]Whittington, RHockenhull, JMcGuire, Jet al.A systematic review of risk assessment strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: update 2002–8. Health Technology Assessment 2013;17(50):1128.
[13]Singh, JPFazel, SForensic risk assessment: A metareview. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2010;37(9):965–88.
[14]Moher, DLiberati, ATetzlaff, Jet al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med 2009;6(7):e1000097.
[15]Hurducas, CCSingh, JPde Ruiter, Cet al.Violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review of surveys. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2014;13(3):181–92.
[16]Singh, JPDesmarais, SLHurducas, Cet al.International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2014;13(3):1932–06.
[17]Singh, JPDesmarais, SLOtto, RKet al.The International Risk Survey: Use and perceived utility of structured violence risk assessment tools in 44 countries. In: International Perspectives on Violence Risk Assessment. Oxford University Press; 2016.
[18]Monahan, JSteadman, HJSilver, Eet al.Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence 2001, Oxford University Press.
[19]Monahan, JSteadman, HJRobbins, PCet al.An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatric services 2005;56(7):810–5.
[20]Andrews, DBonta, JLSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised 1995, Multi-Health Systems: Inc Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[21]Hare, RDThe Hare psychopathy checklist-revised: Manual 1991, Multi-Health Systems, Incorporated.
[22]Hart, SDCox, DNHare, RDThe Hare psychopathy checklist: Screening version (PCL: SV) 1995, MHS-Multi-Health Systems, Incorporated.
[23]Quinsey, VLHarris, GTRice, MEet al.Actuarial prediction of violenceQuinsey, VHarris, GRice, M.Cormier, CThe Law and Public Policy. Violent offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk 2006, American Psychological Association Washington, DC, US155–96.
[24]Quinsey, VHarris, GRice, Met al.Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk 2006, American Psychological Association Washington, DC.
[25]Wong, SGordon, AViolence Risk Scale (VRS). Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 2000.
[26]Douglas, KHart, SWebster, Cet al.HCR-20 version 3: assessing risk for violence 2013, Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada.
[27]Webster, CDouglas, KEaves, Det al.HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence (Version 2) 1997, Simon Fraser University. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
[28]Webster, CDMartin, MBrink, Jet al.START: The Short-term assessment of risk and treatability 2004, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton.
[29]Webster, CMartin, MBrink, Jet al.Manual for the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) (Version 1.1) 2009, British Columbia Mental Health & Addiction Services Coquitlam, Canada.
[30]Bjorkly, SHartvig, PHeggen, FAet al.Development of a brief screen for violence risk (V-RISK-10) in acute and general psychiatry: An introduction with emphasis on findings from a naturalistic test of interrater reliability. European Psychiatry 2009;24(6):388–94.
[31]Hartvig, PØstberg, BAlfarnes, Set al.Violence Risk Screening-10 (V-RISK-10) 2007, Centre for Research and Education in Forensic Psychiatry Oslo, Norway.
[32]Macaskill, PGatsonis, CDeeks, Jet al.Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 09 0 2010, The Cochrane Collaboration London.
[33]Reitsma, JBGlas, ASRutjes, AWet al.Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2005;58(10):982–90.
[34]Rutter, CMGatsonis, CAA hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in medicine 2001;20(19):2865–84.
[35]Jackson, DWhite, IRThompson, SGExtending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses. Statistics in medicine 2010;29(12):1282–97.
[36]Jackson, DWhite, IRRiley, RDQuantifying the impact of between-study heterogeneity in multivariate meta-analyses. Statistics in medicine 2012;31(29):3805–20.
[37]Verde, PEMeta-analysis of diagnostic test data: modern statistical approaches 2008, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.
[38]White, IRMultivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata Journal 2011;11(2):255.
[39]Zhou, YDendukuri, NStatistics for quantifying heterogeneity in univariate and bivariate meta-analyses of binary data: The case of meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Statistics in medicine 2014;33(16):2701–17.
[40]Naaktgeboren, CAOchodo, EAVan Enst, WAet al.Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2016; 16:6.
[41]StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 14 2015, StataCorp LP. College Station, TX.
[42]Tape, TG.The area under an ROC curve. Interpreting diagnostic tests, 2006. Available from: http://gim.unmc.edu/dxtests/roc3.htm.
[43]Eriksen, BMSBjørkly, SLockertsen, Ø.et al.Low cholesterol level as a risk marker of inpatient and post-discharge violence in acute psychiatry—A prospective study with a focus on gender differences. Psychiatry research 2017; 255:17.
[44]Rosenfeld, BFoellmi, MKhadivi, Aet al.Determining when to conduct a violence risk assessment: Development and initial validation of the Fordham Risk Screening Tool (FRST). Law and human behavior 2017;41(4):325.
[45]Hogan, NEnnis, LAssessment, FAssessing risk for forensic psychiatric inpatient violence: A meta-analysis. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology 2010; 2:137–47.
[46]Douglas, TPugh, JSingh, Iet al.Risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry: the need for better data. European Psychiatry 2017; 42:134–7.
[47]Abderhalden, CNeedham, IDassen, Tet al.Structured risk assessment and violence in acute psychiatric wards: randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2008;193(1):4450.
[48]Singh, JPPredictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: A methodological primer. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2013;31(1):822.
[49]Gulati, GCornish, RAl-Taiar, Het al.Web-based violence risk monitoring tool in psychoses: pilot study in community forensic patients. Journal of forensic psychology practice 2016;16(1):4959.
[50]Fazel, SWolf, ALarsson, Het al.Identification of low risk of violent crime in severe mental illness with a clinical prediction tool (Oxford Mental Illness and Violence tool [OxMIV]): a derivation and validation study. Lancet Psychiatry 2017;4(6):461–8.
[51]Wolf, AFanshawe, TSariaslan, Aet al.Prediction of violent crime on discharge from secure psychiatric hospitals: A clinical prediction rule (FoVOx). European Psychiatry 2017; 47:8893.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Table S1

Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material
Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material 1

 Word (106 KB)
106 KB
WORD
Supplementary Table S2

Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material
Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material 2

 Word (76 KB)
76 KB
WORD
Supplementary Table S3

Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material
Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material 3

 Word (65 KB)
65 KB
WORD
Supplementary Table S4

Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material
Ramesh et al. Supplementary Material 4

 Word (54 KB)
54 KB

Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Taanvi Ramesh (a1), Artemis Igoumenou (a2), Maria Vazquez Montes (a3) and Seena Fazel (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Taanvi Ramesh (a1), Artemis Igoumenou (a2), Maria Vazquez Montes (a3) and Seena Fazel (a1)
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *