43 results
Antipsychotic polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions among adults in a London mental health service, 2008–2018
- Justin C. Yang, Johan H. Thygesen, Nomi Werbeloff, Joseph F. Hayes, David P. J. Osborn
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 53 / Issue 9 / July 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 April 2022, pp. 4220-4227
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) occurs commonly but it is unclear whether it is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Electronic health records (EHRs) offer an opportunity to examine APP using real-world data. In this study, we use EHR data to identify periods when patients were prescribed 2 + antipsychotics and compare these with periods of antipsychotic monotherapy. To determine the relationship between APP and subsequent instances of ADRs: QT interval prolongation, hyperprolactinaemia, and increased body weight [body mass index (BMI) ⩾ 25].
MethodsWe extracted anonymised EHR data. Patients aged 16 + receiving antipsychotic medication at Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018 were included. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to elucidate the relationship between APP and the subsequent presence of QT interval prolongation, hyperprolactinaemia, and/or increased BMI following a period of APP within 7, 30, or 180 days respectively.
ResultsWe identified 35 409 observations of antipsychotic prescribing among 13 391 patients. Compared with antipsychotic monotherapy, APP was associated with a subsequent increased risk of hyperprolactinaemia (adjusted odds ratio 2.46; 95% CI 1.87–3.24) and of registering a BMI > 25 (adjusted odds ratio 1.75; 95% CI 1.33–2.31) in the period following the APP prescribing.
ConclusionsOur observations suggest that APP should be carefully managed with attention to hyperprolactinaemia and obesity.
Sex differences in associations of socioemotional dispositions measured in childhood and adolescence with brain white matter microstructure 12 years later
- Part of
- Benjamin B. Lahey, Kendra E. Hinton, Francisco Calvache Meyer, Victoria Villalta-Gil, Carol A. Van Hulle, Brooks Applegate, Xiaochan Yang, David H. Zald
-
- Journal:
- Personality Neuroscience / Volume 3 / 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, e5
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Predictive associations were estimated between socioemotional dispositions measured at 10–17 years using the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS) and future individual differences in white matter microstructure measured at 22–31 years of age. Participants were 410 twins (48.3% monozygotic) selected for later neuroimaging by oversampling on risk for psychopathology from a representative sample of child and adolescent twins. Controlling for demographic covariates and total intracranial volume (TICV), each CADS disposition (negative emotionality, prosociality, and daring) rated by one of the informants (parent or youth) significantly predicted global fractional anisotropy (FA) averaged across the major white matter tracts in brain in adulthood, but did so through significant interactions with sex after false discovery rate (FDR) correction. In females, each 1 SD difference in greater parent-rated prosociality was associated with 0.43 SD greater FA (p < 0.0008). In males, each 1 SD difference in greater parent-rated daring was associated with 0.24 SD lower FA (p < 0.0008), and each 1 SD difference in greater youth-rated negative emotionality was associated with 0.18 SD greater average FA (p < 0.0040). These findings suggest that CADS dispositions are associated with FA, but associations differ by sex. Exploratory analyses suggest that FA may mediate the associations between dispositions and psychopathology in some cases. These associations over 12 years could reflect enduring brain–behavior associations in spite of transactions with the environment, but could equally reflect processes in which dispositional differences in behavior influence the development of white matter. Future longitudinal studies are needed to resolve the causal nature of these sex-moderated associations.
3382 Assessing Racial Disparities in Hepatitis C Retention of Care
- Austin Taylor Jones, Lisa Moreno-Walton, Kanayo R. Okeke-Eweni, Keanan M. McGonigle, David H. Yang, Morris Kim, Jenna Miller, Patricia Kissinger
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 118-119
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study is to assess differences in outcomes between African Americans (AAs) and whites along the HCV care cascade. Primary outcome was retention in the HCV care cascade, measured in two ways. For viral RNA confirmation, retention was a percentage of those having screened antibody reactive. For hepatic ultrasound, primary care, HCV specialty clinic, treatment initiation, and sustained viral load (SVR), retention was a percentage of those found chronically infected by positive RNA viral load. Secondary outcome was time to follow-up from antibody screening to each subsequent step in the care cascade. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study was performed. AA and white patients who tested HCV antibody reactive from March to October 2015 at the University Medical Center (UMC) Emergency Department in New Orleans, LA were included in this study. Outcomes were assessed using the HCV Continuum of Care model, delineating successive stages of care from identification to cure. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 728 patients screened HCV antibody reactive, including 446 AAs and 282 whites. AAs (53.5 years, SD 10.2) were disproportionately older than whites (46.7 years, SD 11.9) (p <0.001), more likely to be insured (89.2% vs 78.7%, p<0.001), had higher rates of Medicare (28.0% vs 12.1%, p<0.001), and less frequent history of intravenous drug use (IVDU) (32.3% vs 46.1%, p<0.001). For AAs, retention in the treatment cascade was 96.2% for viral RNA confirmation, 50.9% for hepatic ultrasound, 26.8% for primary care, 35.2% for HCV specialty clinic, 14.5% for treatment initiation, and 9.6% for sustained viral response (SVR). Among whites, retention in the treatment cascade was 96.8% for viral RNA confirmation, 37.8% for hepatic ultrasound, 16.1% for primary care, 23.3% for HCV specialty clinic, 8.8% for treatment initiation, and 7.8% for SVR. AAs had a higher likelihood of receiving a hepatic ultrasound (OR=1.70; CI=1.19-2.25; p<0.005), following up with primary care (OR = 1.91, CI=1.21-3.02, p<0.005), and attending the viral hepatitis specialty clinic (OR=1.79, CI=1.20-2.68, p<0.005), as compared to their white counterparts. After adjusting for age, insurance, and history of IVDU, AAs did not have a higher likelihood of receiving a hepatic ultrasound (aOR=1.09, CI=0.995-1.19) or seeking primary care (aOR=1.05, CI=0.98-1.14). AAs had attenuated odds of attending viral hepatitis specialty clinic (aOR=1.09, CI = 1.01-1.19). There was no statistically significant difference in follow-up time in the treatment cascade for AAs versus whites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Race alone cannot explain differences in achievement along the care cascade. Significant differences in retention along the HCV care cascade appear to be related primarily to differences in age and insurance status. In our population, older AAs are disproportionately insured through Medicare, thereby expanding their access to health resources. Their white counterparts are younger and more uninsured, leading to decreased access to care and ability to attend HCV follow-up appointments. ED HCV screening programs are still in their infancy and have opportunities to improve their linkage to care rates. Additional interventions are needed to better connect patients screened positive in the ED to HCV specialist care, preserving equity across racial groups.
25 - Acute Stress Disorder
- from Section 6 - Etiology and Phenomenology of Specific Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders
- Edited by Bunmi O. Olatunji, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders
- Published online:
- 28 December 2018
- Print publication:
- 03 January 2019, pp 685-722
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Materials assurance through orthogonal materials measurements: X-ray fluorescence aspects
- Mark A. Rodriguez, Mark H. Van Benthem, Donald F. Susan, James J. M. Griego, Pin Yang, Curtis D. Mowry, David G. Enos
-
- Journal:
- Powder Diffraction / Volume 32 / Issue 2 / June 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 June 2017, pp. 124-132
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) has been employed as one of several orthogonal means of screening materials to prevent counterfeit and adulterated products from entering the product stream. We document the use of principal component analysis (PCA) of XRF data on compositionally similar and dissimilar stainless steels for the purpose of testing the feasibility of employing XRF spectra to parse and bin these alloys as the same or significantly different alloy materials. The results indicate that XRF spectra can separate and assign alloys via PCA, but that important corrections for detector drift and scaling must be performed in order to achieve valid results.
Baseline demographics, clinical features and predictors of conversion among 200 individuals in a longitudinal prospective psychosis-risk cohort
- G. Brucato, M. D. Masucci, L. Y. Arndt, S. Ben-David, T. Colibazzi, C. M. Corcoran, A. H. Crumbley, F. M. Crump, K. E. Gill, D. Kimhy, A. Lister, S. A. Schobel, L. H. Yang, J. A. Lieberman, R. R. Girgis
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 47 / Issue 11 / August 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 March 2017, pp. 1923-1935
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background
DSM-5 proposes an Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (APS) for further investigation, based upon the Attenuated Positive Symptom Syndrome (APSS) in the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS). SIPS Unusual Thought Content, Disorganized Communication and Total Disorganization scores predicted progression to psychosis in a 2015 NAPLS-2 Consortium report. We sought to independently replicate this in a large single-site high-risk cohort, and identify baseline demographic and clinical predictors beyond current APS/APSS criteria.
MethodWe prospectively studied 200 participants meeting criteria for both the SIPS APSS and DSM-5 APS. SIPS scores, demographics, family history of psychosis, DSM Axis-I diagnoses, schizotypy, and social and role functioning were assessed at baseline, with follow-up every 3 months for 2 years.
ResultsThe conversion rate was 30% (n = 60), or 37.7% excluding participants who were followed under 2 years. This rate was stable across time. Conversion time averaged 7.97 months for 60% who developed schizophrenia and 15.68 for other psychoses. Mean conversion age was 20.3 for males and 23.5 for females. Attenuated odd ideas and thought disorder appear to be the positive symptoms which best predict psychosis in a logistic regression. Total negative symptom score, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black/African-American race were also predictive. As no Axis-I diagnosis or schizotypy predicted conversion, the APS is supported as a distinct syndrome. In addition, cannabis use disorder did not increase risk of conversion to psychosis.
ConclusionsNAPLS SIPS findings were replicated while controlling for clinical and demographic factors, strongly supporting the validity of the SIPS APSS and DSM-5 APS diagnosis.
Notes
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 159-162
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contents
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 197-200
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Reducing Crime at High-Crime Places: Practice and Evidence
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 113-139
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The fact that crime and disorder are concentrated at a few places is interesting and deserves an explanation. It is also interesting that places show up in other criminological theories and in other disciplines. And it is useful to understand the methods for studying places. However, a primary reason we are interested in high-crime places is that it might be possible to do something about crime by addressing these places. We are convinced that focusing on places can substantially reduce crime and disorder. Our conviction is not a matter of faith, but is based on over twenty-five years of accumulating evidence.
This chapter summarizes the research evidence examining whether focusing on crime places reduces crime. We first discuss a broad range of place-based prevention strategies examined by Eck and Guerrette (2012). This review provides strong evidence for a place-based approach to crime prevention. We then turn to a specific form of place-based crime prevention – hot spots policing (Sherman and Weisburd 1995). Again, we have a strong body of evidence supporting a place-based approach. Having reviewed hot spots policing, we turn to the importance of place managers and third parties in controlling problem places. We then examine an extension of the third-party approach to argue that a place-based approach to crime may free crime control policy from the police monopoly. Then we describe how a place-based approach to crime could be incorporated in community corrections to improve probation and parole outcomes. Finally, we review the larger body of research on the potential threat of crime displacement, and its opposite, the diffusion of crime control benefits. Consistently, the evidence described in this chapter clearly shows the substantial utility of a place-based approach for reducing crime.
SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION AT PLACES
In Chapter 3 we argued for the importance of social disorganization theories for understanding crime places. This is an area where basic research suggests promise (e.g., see Weisburd et al. 2012; Weisburd et al. 2014), but where there is little evidence of effectiveness of specific practices. Such evidence is beginning to be developed, but we can say little at this juncture. In contrast, the evidence regarding opportunity reduction and crime has grown systematically over the last few decades.
2 - The Concentration of Crime at Place
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 16-41
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Take a moment to imagine a crime occurring – perhaps a street robbery or a bag snatch. When you do this, it is difficult not to visualize the crime occurring in a particular setting or place. So, you might imagine a dark street corner with dim street lighting or seating in the outside area of a public bar. It seems intuitively sensible to analyze and understand crime at this unit of analysis – in other words, to investigate how criminals behave and crime concentrates at small microplaces. However, engaging in such microlevel analysis has tended to be a more recent criminological undertaking, and there are still many fruitful avenues to explore in terms of advancing both our knowledge and the sophistication of the methods that we use in this research area.
In this chapter, we raise and endeavor to answer a number of questions concerning the appropriate scale of analysis of criminological enquiry. To do this, we will start by defining what we mean by place and how this differs from other geographic concepts. Next, we highlight what has become the key catalyst for the criminology of place – the tremendous concentration of crime at microgeographic units of analysis. The strong and consistent concentration of crime at addresses, street segments, and other microgeographic units across cities is key to understanding why it is important to study the criminology of place and why it has such strong policy implications. We then turn to some additional statistical benefits of studying crime at microgeographic units that have to do with what is often termed “spatial interaction effects.” Finally, we examine problems that crime and place researchers will need to consider, and recommend some future directions for research exploring crime concentration at places.
PLACE AND SPACE
Geographic concepts are sometimes used in criminological research without a clear understanding of their meaning. Place and space are two such concepts. The subtle difference between them is important to keep in mind, as they can be a guide to establishing a carefully constructed study and influence the interpretation of findings. Furthermore, as will become apparent later in this chapter, a confusion of these concepts can mislead the reader in the interpretation of an argument. For example, it is important to keep in mind that place does not necessarily mean small units of analysis, nor does space necessarily refer to large areas.
Place Matters
- Criminology for the Twenty-First Century
- David Weisburd, John E. Eck, Anthony A. Braga, Cody W. Telep, Breanne Cave, Kate Bowers, Gerben Bruinsma, Charlotte Gill, Elizabeth R. Groff, Julie Hibdon, Joshua C. Hinkle, Shane D. Johnson, Brian Lawton, Cynthia Lum, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, George Rengert, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang
-
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016
-
Over the last two decades, there has been increased interest in the distribution of crime and other antisocial behavior at lower levels of geography. The focus on micro geography and its contribution to the understanding and prevention of crime has been called the 'criminology of place'. It pushes scholars to examine small geographic areas within cities, often as small as addresses or street segments, for their contribution to crime. Here, the authors describe what is known about crime and place, providing the most up-to-date and comprehensive review available. Place Matters shows that the study of criminology of place should be a central focus of criminology in the twenty-first century. It creates a tremendous opportunity for advancing our understanding of crime, and for addressing it. The book brings together eighteen top scholars in criminology and place to provide comprehensive research expanding across different themes.
4 - The Importance of Place in Mainstream Criminology and Related Fields: Influences and Lessons to be Learned
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 68-85
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter explores the importance of place in theory and research in both mainstream criminology and other disciplines. As we noted in earlier chapters, traditional criminology has focused primarily on understanding why people commit crime. This focus on criminality has generally inhibited study of microgeographies and their role in producing crime. However, more recently there has been a trend toward integrating microgeographic places into traditional theorizing about criminality. In the first part of the chapter we discuss this trend, focusing on some recent innovations in understanding criminality that have incorporated place-based perspectives. In the second part of the chapter we focus on how other disciplines have influenced thinking in this area, focusing in particular on contributions in psychology, economics, and public health. Finally, we explore how trends in other disciplines might influence future directions of study in the criminology of place.
THE GROWING ROLE OF MICROGEOGRAPHIC PLACES IN TRADITIONAL THEORIZING OF CRIMINALITY
As we noted in Chapter 1, places, at least at a macro level, played a key part in the development of criminology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But despite the role of place in crime in empirical study in Europe and theoretical development in the Chicago School through social disorganization theory, microgeographic places were mostly ignored. This was not because early criminologists failed to recognize the role of place in crime. Crime occurs in specific environments, and this was apparent to observers of the crime problem. Nonetheless, as we noted in Chapter 1, early criminologists did not see “crime places” – small discrete areas within communities – as a relevant focus of criminological study. This was the case, in part, because crime opportunities provided by places were assumed to be so numerous as to make concentration on specific places of little utility for theory or policy. What is the point of focusing theory or research on the opportunities offered by specific places if such opportunities can be found throughout the urban context?
Moreover, criminologists did not see the utility in focusing in on situational opportunities when criminal motivation was the key to understanding crime rates. Criminologists traditionally assumed that situational factors played a relatively minor role in explaining crime as compared with the “driving force of criminal dispositions” (Clarke and Felson 1993, 4; Trasler 1993).
3 - Theories of Crime and Place
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 42-67
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the previous chapter, we showed that crime is concentrated at very small geographic units, substantially smaller than neighborhoods, and that these concentrations, on average, are relatively stable. This is true whether examining high- or low-crime neighborhoods. Although high-crime places do cluster, they seldom form a homogeneous block of high-crime places. Rather, interspersed within concentrations of high-crime places are many low- and modest-crime places.
Why is crime concentrated in a relatively small number of places? Standard criminology has not asked this question, largely because standard criminology focuses on criminality and implicitly assumes that the density of offenders explains crime density. Recognition that place characteristics matter is the starting point for this chapter. We look at two perspectives on crime place characteristics. We use the term “perspective” because each type of explanation is comprised of multiple theories linked by a common orientation. The first perspective arises from opportunity theories of crime. The second perspective arises from social disorganization theories of crime.
We begin by contrasting two ways of thinking about how a place becomes a crime hot spot and suggest that the process by which high-crime places evolve must involve place characteristics. In the next sections, we examine opportunity and social disorganization explanations. In the final section of the chapter, we examine possible ways researchers might link these two perspectives.
PROCESSES THAT CREATE CRIME PLACES
Before we look for explanations of why places become hot spots of crime it is important to consider two processes that might lead to such an outcome. Criminologists have generally proposed two generic models to account for the processes that lead to variation in place susceptibility to crime. One model suggests that places may start with reasonably similar risks of an initial criminal attack, but once attacked the risk of a subsequent attack on the place rises. Over time, places diverge in their crime risk, and consequently in their crime counts. This temporal contagion model is also known as a boost model (see Chapter 2) or a state-dependence model. It puts the emphasis on offenders’ willingness to return to a previously successful crime site (Johnson et al. 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). It suggests that irrespective of initial crime risk the occurrence of a crime will lead to changes in risk of crime at a place.
List of figures
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
7 - Crime Places in the Criminological Imagination
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 140-158
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
We began this book by noting that criminologists have largely ignored the involvement of microgeographic places in crime. Mainstream criminologists have focused on “who done it?” and not “where done it?” (Sherman 1995). At least for the last century the key inquiries of crime and the key prevention approaches have looked to doing something about criminal motivation (Sutherland 1947; Reiss 1981). Why people commit crime has been the main focus of criminology (Brantingham and Brantingham 1990; Weisburd 2002), and catching and processing offenders has been the main focus of crime prevention (Weisburd 2008). In contrast, the criminology of place (Sherman et al. 1989; Weisburd et al. 2012), which began to develop in the 1980s and 1990s (Brantingham and Brantingham 1981; 1984; Eck 1994; Eck and Weisburd 1995; Roncek and Bell 1981; Weisburd and Green 1995a), provides an alternative vision of how we can understand crime and the crime problem. Like the emergence of community criminology during the same period (Bursik 1988; Morenoff et al. 2001; Sampson 2008; Sampson et al. 1997) the criminology of place has offered a new set of mechanisms for crime study and a new set of methods for doing something about the crime problem.
Theory has been a driving force in criminological study, and as we note below, we think that more not less attention to theory is important for advancing the criminology of place. However, theories are about something and try to explain something. When we change the unit of analysis, we are changing the target for theory. The criminology of place proposes a new target. It focuses on places, rather than people. Its goal is to explain the criminal involvement of microgeographic units rather than trying to explain the criminal involvement of people. This does not mean we ignore the role of individuals in the crime problem. But it does mean that we begin our inquiries with the place and see the individuals as only one part of the crime equation at places.
We have illustrated in the preceding chapters the extent to which theory, method, and empirical evidence about crime places have been developing over the last three decades. In this concluding chapter, we want to draw from our review of what is known some key themes that we think our work has identified, and key questions that still need to be answered.
Frontmatter
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
References
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 163-196
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of contributors
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp xiii-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
1 - Crime Places within Criminological Thought
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 1-15
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
A new perspective in criminology has emerged over the last three decades, a perspective with considerable potential to add to our understanding and control of crime. In the same way the invention of the microscope opened up a biological world scientists had not previously seen, this new perspective opens the world of small geographic features we had overlooked. Research has demonstrated that actions at these microplaces have strong connections to crime. Just as the microscope paved the way to new treatments and advances in public health, this new perspective in criminology is yielding improved ways of reducing crime. This new perspective shifts our attention from large geographic units, such as neighborhoods, to small units, such as street segments and addresses. This shift in the “units of analysis” transforms our understanding of the crime problem and what we can do about it.
There are two aspects to this shift in units. The first shifts our attention from large geographic units to small ones. This we have just mentioned. The second shifts our attention from people to events, from those who commit crimes to the crimes themselves. Criminology has been primarily focused on people (Brantingham and Brantingham 1990; Weisburd 2002). Frank Cullen (2011) noted in his Sutherland Address to the American Society of Criminology in 2010 that the focus of criminology has been even more specific. He argued that criminology was dominated by a paradigm, which he termed “adolescence-limited criminology,” that had focused primarily on adolescents.
To what extent have person-based studies dominated criminology? Weisburd (2015a) examined units of analysis in all empirical articles published in Criminology between 1990 and 2014. Criminology is the highest-impact journal in the field and the main scientific publication of the largest criminological society in the world, the American Society of Criminology. He identified 719 research articles. Of the 719 articles, two-thirds focused on people as units of analysis. The next main units of study were situations (15 percent) and macrogeographic areas such as cities and states (11 percent). Eck and Eck (2012) examined the 148 research papers published in Criminology and Public Policy from its first issue in 2001 until the end of 2010, and the 230 articles published in Criminal Justice Policy Review during the same time period.