Purpose The purpose of this paper is to gather epidemiologicalinformation concerning firesetters with intellectual disabilities (ID) in Denmark to identify the assessment and treatment needs of this population and inform further research in this area. Design/methodology/approach The records held by the Danish Ministry of Justice concerning all firesetters with ID convicted of deliberate firesetting were reviewed for the period January 2001 to December 2010 inclusive. File information was extracted for 83 offenders concerning: demographic and personal characteristics; mental health characteristics; offending behaviour; offence-specific factors; and motives for offending. A sub-group of seven offenders were interviewed to explore some of the themes that emerged from the file review. Findings The majority of study participants were male and were classified as having mild ID and around 50 per cent had additional mental health problems. Many came from disturbed and deprived backgrounds. Two-thirds had set more than one fire and over 60 per cent had convictions for offences other than firesetting. Alcohol was involved in the firesetting behaviour in a significant proportion of cases (25 per cent). The motives for setting fires were – in descending order – communication (of anger, frustration and distress), fire fascination and vandalism. Interviews with participants indicated the important communicative function of firesetting, the difficulties people had in talking about and acknowledging their firesetting behaviour, and lack of access to targeted interventions. Research limitations/implications Interventions for Danish firesetters with ID, as for firesetters with ID elsewhere, need to target the communicative function of this behaviour, along with offenders’ lack of insight and initial reluctance to accept responsibility for their behaviour and associated risks. Adjunctive treatment is required to address the psychiatric comorbidity experienced by many of these offenders, along with the alcohol use/misuse that is associated with many of these offences. Originality/value This is the first study concerning nature and needs of firesetters with ID in Denmark.

Background: According to clinical guidelines, advice to stay active despite experiencing pain is recommended to patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, not all patients receive guideline-concordant information and advice, and some patients still believe that activity avoidance will help them recover. The purpose was to study whether guidelineconcordant beliefs among patients and other explanatory variables were associated with recovery. The main aim was to investigate whether believing staying active despite having pain is associated with a better functional outcome. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study involving adults with non-specific LBP referred from general practices to the Spine Centre at Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Denmark. Patients reported on their beliefs about the importance of finding the cause, the importance of diagnostic imaging, perceiving to have received advice to stay active, pain duration, pain intensity, and STarT Back Tool. Agreeing to: 'An increase in pain is an indication that I should stop what I'm doing until the pain decreases' adjusted for age, gender, and education level was the primary explanatory analysis. A 30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score after 52 weeks was the outcome. Results: 816 patients were included and 596 (73.0%) agreed that pain is a warning signal to stop being active. Among patients not considering pain as a warning signal, 80 (43.2%) had a favourable functional improvement of ≥30% on the RMDQ compared to 201 (41.2%) among patients considering pain a warning signal. No difference was found between the two groups (adjusted P = 0.542 and unadjusted P = 0.629). However, STarT Back Tool high-risk patients had a less favourable functional outcome (adjusted P = 0.003 and unadjusted P = 0.002). Chronic pain was associated with less favourable functional outcome (adjusted P < 0.001 and unadjusted P < 0.001), whereas beliefs about finding the cause, diagnostic imaging, perceiving to have received advice to stay active, or pain intensity were not significantly associated with outcome. Conclusions: Holding the single belief that pain is a warning signal to stop being active was not associated with functional outcome. However, patients characterised by having multiple psychological barriers (high-risk according to the STarT Back Tool) had a less favourable functional outcome.

No abstract

Purpose Persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) who offend are treated differently depending on the national jurisdiction. Norway and Denmark are two such examples. The differences in care models may also have an impact on staff perspectives. This paper aims to study the differences between Norwegian and Danish staff members within secure forensic ID services. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study involving Norwegian (n = 145) and Danish staff (n = 279) in secure forensic learning disabilities services was conducted. The response rates were 50% in Denmark (n = 147) and 69% in Norway (n = 98), respectively. An electronic survey covering five sets of topics (demographic characteristics, working conditions, workplace culture, work motivation and work resilience) was used. The findings was statistically analysed using SPSS. Findings This study confirmed that staff in the two neighbouring countries have common conceptions of their employment. Danish staff were more exposed to violent incidents (t = 4.1(237); p < 0.001). There was greater concern with workplace safety in Denmark (t = 5.2(237); p < 0.001) compared to more team-based and rigid working conditions in Norway (t = −2.6(237); p < 0.01). Originality/value These differences are discussed in relation to some important national differences in a professional culture, educational systems, service organisation and legal issues that possibly add realistic explanations to the findings.