BackgroundThere is limited empirical information on service-level outcome domains and indicators for the large number of people with intellectual disabilities being treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals.AimsThis study identified and developed the domains that should be used to measure treatment outcomes for this population.MethodA systematic review of the literature highlighted 60 studies which met eligibility criteria; they were synthesised using content analysis. The findings were refined within a consultation and consensus exercises with carers, patients and experts.ResultsThe final framework encompassed three a priori superordinate domains: (a) effectiveness, (b) patient safety and (c) patient and carer experience. Within each of these, further sub-domains emerged from our systematic review and consultation exercises. These included severity of clinical symptoms, offending behaviours, reactive and restrictive interventions, quality of life and patient satisfaction.ConclusionsTo index recovery, services need to measure treatment outcomes using this framework.Declaration of interestNone.Copyright and usage© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence.
Under the umbrella term of 'team formulation', three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.
BackgroundInpatient services for people with intellectual and other types of developmental disabilities (IDD) who also have forensic or risk issues are largely provided in secure hospitals. Although this is a health service sector with high levels of expenditure, there is limited empirical information on patient outcomes from such services. In order for a future substantive longitudinal outcomes study in forensic IDD services to be informed and feasible, more needs to be understood about the outcome domains that are of relevance and importance and how they should be measured. A preliminary series of studies was therefore undertaken.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence in relation to the outcome domains that have been researched in the existing literature from hospital and community forensic services for people with IDD, within the broad domains of service effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience. To identify a definitive framework of outcome domains (and associated measures and indicators) based both on this research evidence and on the views of patients, carers and clinicians. To synthesise the information gathered in order to inform design of future multisite longitudinal research in the sector.DesignThree linked studies were conducted. Stage 1 was a systematic review and evidence synthesis of outcome domains and measures as found within the forensic IDD literature. Stage 2 was a consultation exercise with 15 patients with IDD and six carers. Stage 3 was a modified Delphi consensus exercise with 15 clinicians and experts using the information gathered at stages 1 and 2.ResultsAt stage 1, 60 studies that researched a range of outcomes in forensic IDD services were identified from the literature. This resulted in the construction of an initial framework of outcome domains. The consultation with patients and carers at stage 2 added to these framework domains that related particularly to carer experience and the level of support post discharge in the community. The Delphi process at stage 3 confirmed the validity of the resulting framework for clinician. This survey also identified the outcome measures preferred by clinicians and those that are currently utilised in services. Thus, indicators of appropriate measures in some important domains were identified, although there was a paucity of measures in other domains.ConclusionsTogether, these three linked studies led to the development of an evidence-based framework of key outcome domains and subdomains. A provisional list of associated measures and indicators was developed, although with the paucity of measures in some domains development of specific indicators may be required. With further refinement this could eventually be utilised by services and commissioners for comparative purposes, and in future empirical research on outcomes in forensic IDD services. An outline research proposal closely linked to recent policy initiatives was proposed. Limitations of the study include the relatively small number of carers and patients and range of experts consulted.Future workThis would comprise a national longitudinal study tracking IDD in patients through hospitalisation and discharge.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016941.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
This study examined the associations between conscientious perfectionism (high standards), self-evaluative perfectionism (self-criticism) and eating psychopathology among dancers. A sample of 244 female dancers, with a mean age of 20.11 years (standard deviation=1.97) completed the Perfectionism Inventory and Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. Self-evaluative perfectionism predicted eating psychopathology (eating restraint, eating concern, weight concern and shape concern). This relationship was not moderated by conscientious perfectionism. The mediation analyses showed that although conscientious perfectionism predicted eating psychopathology, this relationship was fully mediated by self-evaluative perfectionism. These findings demonstrate the greater influence of self-evaluative perfectionism, rather than conscientious perfectionism, on eating psychopathology in dancers.
This study is the first to investigate the outcomes of relevance to patients and their families. These views have been incorporated into an outcomes framework which will form the foundation of future prospective outcome studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.