3 results
A systematic review of in-patient psychiatric care for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: effectiveness, patient safety and experience
- Clare L. Melvin, Magali Barnoux, Regi Alexander, Ashok Roy, John Devapriam, Robert Blair, Samuel Tromans, Lee Shepstone, Peter E. Langdon
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 8 / Issue 6 / November 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 October 2022, e187
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
An increasing number of children, adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism are being admitted to general psychiatric wards and cared for by general psychiatrists.
AimsThe aim of this systematic review was to consider the likely effectiveness of in-patient treatment for this population, and compare and contrast differing models of in-patient care.
MethodA systematic search was completed to identify papers where authors had reported data about the effectiveness of in-patient admissions with reference to one of three domains: treatment effect (e.g. length of stay, clinical outcome, readmission), patient safety (e.g. restrictive practices) and patient experience (e.g. patient or family satisfaction). Where possible, outcomes associated with admission were considered further within the context of differing models of in-patient care (e.g. specialist in-patient services versus general mental health in-patient services).
ResultsA total of 106 studies were included and there was evidence that improvements in mental health, social functioning, behaviour and forensic risk were associated with in-patient admission. There were two main models of in-patient psychiatric care described within the literature: admission to a specialist intellectual disability or general mental health in-patient service. Patients admitted to specialist intellectual disability in-patient services had greater complexity, but there were additional benefits, including fewer out-of-area discharges and lower seclusion rates.
ConclusionsThere was evidence that admission to in-patient services was associated with improvements in mental health for this population. There was some evidence indicating better outcomes for those admitted to specialist services.
7 - Female arsonists and firesetters
- from Part I - Theory and research
-
- By Theresa A. Gannon, University of Kent, UK, Nichola Tyler, University of Kent, UK, Magali Barnoux, University of Kent, UK, Afroditi Pina, University of Kent, UK
-
- Book:
- Firesetting and Mental Health
- Published by:
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published online:
- 25 February 2017, pp 126-142
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Understanding the aetiology of arson and firesetting and how to assess and treat individuals who deliberately set fires is a complex process that is still very much ‘work in progress’. However, as with most forensic issues, the research literature examining male individuals who set fires is substantially more developed than that focusing on females. To date, for example, review articles examining the concept of arson and firesetting either focus very little attention on females (e.g., Barnett & Spitzer, 1994; Smith & Short, 1995) or focus solely on males (Gannon & Pina, 2010). The main aim of this chapter is to provide a summary overview of what is currently known regarding women who set fires. It focuses on outlining the key characteristics and features of women who set fires, the aetiology of female-perpetrated firesetting, and the key treatment and risk issues. Where possible, the reported findings on women are compared with what is currently known about males who set fires and women offenders who do not set fires. Throughout this chapter, we generally use the term ‘firesetting’ to refer to any intentional lighting of fires, since ‘arson’ is an arguably narrow and legally constructed term that is unable to account for those whose firesetting remains unapprehended (e.g., firesetting in forensic psychiatry settings). Using the term ‘firesetter’ in relation to women may be especially important, since women appear to be treated more leniently than men by criminal justice officials, perhaps due to childcare responsibilities or other stereotyped preconceptions around females’ risk (Wilbanks, 1986; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006). Thus, many females who set a fire may not hold a conviction for ‘arson’ on record. However, taking into account clinical figures, professionals estimate that male firesetters outnumber females at a figure of around 6:1 (Stewart, 1993).
Key characteristics and features
Sociodemographic features
Many of the sociodemographic features noted in male firesetters who come to professional attention (see Gannon & Pina, 2010, for a review) are similar to those noted for females. For example, research suggests that female firesetters who come to professional attention – like other female offenders – are typically of low-average IQ (Tennent et al, 1971; Stewart, 1993; Noblett & Nelson, 2001), have low socioeconomic status and are poorly educated (Tennent et al, 1971; Harmon et al, 1985; Stewart, 1993; Wachi et al, 2007).
7 - Female arsonists and firesetters
- from Part I - Theory and research
-
- By Theresa A. Gannon, Reader in Forensic Psychology and Chartered Forensic Psychologist, CORE-FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK, Nichola Tyler, PhD Candidate, CORE-FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK, Magali Barnoux, PhD Candidate, CORE-FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK, Afroditi Pina, Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, CORE-FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK
- Edited by Geoffrey L. Dickins, Philip A. Sugarman, Teresa A. Gannon
-
- Book:
- Firesetting and Mental Health
- Published online:
- 02 January 2018
- Print publication:
- 01 February 2012, pp 126-142
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Understanding the aetiology of arson and firesetting and how to assess and treat individuals who deliberately set fires is a complex process that is still very much ‘work in progress’. However, as with most forensic issues, the research literature examining male individuals who set fires is substantially more developed than that focusing on females. To date, for example, review articles examining the concept of arson and firesetting either focus very little attention on females (e.g., Barnett & Spitzer, 1994; Smith & Short, 1995) or focus solely on males (Gannon & Pina, 2010). The main aim of this chapter is to provide a summary overview of what is currently known regarding women who set fires. It focuses on outlining the key characteristics and features of women who set fires, the aetiology of female-perpetrated firesetting, and the key treatment and risk issues. Where possible, the reported findings on women are compared with what is currently known about males who set fires and women offenders who do not set fires. Throughout this chapter, we generally use the term ‘firesetting’ to refer to any intentional lighting of fires, since ‘arson’ is an arguably narrow and legally constructed term that is unable to account for those whose firesetting remains unapprehended (e.g., firesetting in forensic psychiatry settings). Using the term ‘firesetter’ in relation to women may be especially important, since women appear to be treated more leniently than men by criminal justice officials, perhaps due to childcare responsibilities or other stereotyped preconceptions around females’ risk (Wilbanks, 1986; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006). Thus, many females who set a fire may not hold a conviction for ‘arson’ on record. However, taking into account clinical figures, professionals estimate that male firesetters outnumber females at a figure of around 6:1 (Stewart, 1993).
Key characteristics and features
Sociodemographic features
Many of the sociodemographic features noted in male firesetters who come to professional attention (see Gannon & Pina, 2010, for a review) are similar to those noted for females. For example, research suggests that female firesetters who come to professional attention – like other female offenders – are typically of low-average IQ (Tennent et al, 1971; Stewart, 1993; Noblett & Nelson, 2001), have low socioeconomic status and are poorly educated (Tennent et al, 1971; Harmon et al, 1985; Stewart, 1993; Wachi et al, 2007).