The prevalence rate of arson in offenders with intellectual disabilities (ID) has been reported to be higher than that in the general population. This retrospective study focuses on examining the characteristics of offenders with ID and the range of identified reasons for the index offence. The findings indicate a higher prevalence of arson in this population, along with the fact that the majority of people with ID who have committed arson tend to bypass the Criminal Justice System. A significant number are likely to repeat the behaviour and will also commit other offences. The most common reason for arson appears to be revenge, closely followed by suggestibility. The majority had an associated diagnosis of personality disorders along with an Axis 1 psychiatric diagnosis. Other factors include large family size, history of childhood psychiatric disorders, abuse, homelessness, unemployment and relationship difficulties.

Background  Aggressive challenging behaviour is common in adults with intellectual disability (ID) in long‐term care facilities. The government's commitment to the closure of all facilities in England has led to concerns over how to manage this behaviour in the community. The aim of this study was to assess changes in aggressive challenging behaviour and psychotropic drug use in adults with ID following resettlement using a person‐centred approach. Method  The Modified Overt Aggression Scale was administered to carers of 49 adults with ID prior to discharge from a long‐stay hospital and 6 months and 1 year after community resettlement. Results  All areas of aggressive challenging behaviour reduced significantly between baseline and 6 months following resettlement (P < 0.001). This reduction remained (but did not decrease further) at 1‐year follow‐up. Conclusions  Further work is needed to evaluate the role of environmental setting on aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with ID.

No abstract

SummaryThe participation of service users with intellectual disability and carers is essential in medical and psychiatric training at all levels. It validates the training experience provided by incorporating service users' and carers' perspectives and their experience of mental illness/challenging behaviour, anxieties, interactions and feelings generated when dealing with professionals involved in their care, and also provides an understanding of expectations, views on met and unmet needs and how management options are best explained and communicated for meaningful participation in providing consent and in making treatment decisions. This article brings together the benefits of involving service users with intellectual disability and carers in teaching, discussing their roles as trainers, and providing practical tips to plan sessions as well as recognise and overcome barriers.