Caregiver correlates of patient-initiated violence in early psychosis

Smith, Lan-Lan; Onwumere, Juliana; Craig, T. K. J.; Kuipers, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.011

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the care recipient related factors, the modifiable factors were behavioural problems, disease severity, functional status and dependency. The number of studies on care recipient behavioural problems ranked highest (8 studies) Harwood, Ownby, Burnett, Barker, & Duara, 2000;Kramer, 1997;Liu & Huang, 2018;Pruchno & Patrick, 1999;Rapp & Chao, 2000;Smith, Onwumere, Craig, & Kuipers, 2018;Verbakel et al, 2018), among which five were on dementia, followed by patients with chronic disabilities (1 study), the general older adults (1 study) and psychosis (1 study). Seven studies were on care recipient functional status (Harvey, Burns, Fahy, Manley, & Tattan, 2001;Keir, Farland, Lipp, & Friedman, 2009;Liu & Huang, 2018;Pruchno & Patrick, 1999;Tsai & Pai, 2016;Verbakel et al, 2018), including social functioning and physical functioning, and care recipient disease severity (4 studies) (Kramer, 1997;Lee, Kim, Kim, Kim, & Sohn, 2018;Tsai & Pai, 2016;Yamamoto-Mitani et al, 2003).…”

Section: Factors At the Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review

Wang

Cheung

Leung

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To identify factors associated with the caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers. Background Caregiving appraisal, the cognitive evaluation of the caregiving situation, is an essential factor in determining positive or negative caregiving outcomes. Identifying factors associated with appraisal is fundamental for designing effective health promotion strategies. Design A systematic review. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang Database were searched for papers published from 1984 to December 2018. Keywords related to informal caregivers' caregiving appraisal were used. Cross‐sectional and cohort studies were included. The Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies, and the CASP Cohort Study Checklist were used for quality assessment. Descriptive and narrative synthesis were used to analyse data. Social ecological model was used for classifying the associated factors into different levels. The PRISMA checklist was followed. Results Forty studies were included. The quality of the studies was moderate to high. Data were organised into three levels (individual, interpersonal and community level) and categorised into modifiable factors (e.g. patient behavioural problems, caregiver self‐efficacy and social support) and nonmodifiable factors (e.g. caregiving duration, gender and education). The majority of studies have investigated the factors at the individual level. Conclusion There are inconsistencies in the understanding of caregiving appraisal, and consensus is needed for conceptual clarity. Caregiving appraisal is associated with three levels of factors. These modifiable factors provide evidence for designing evidence‐based interventions, and the nonmodifiable factors help identify confounding factors in assessment and appraisal. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses are the best‐placed healthcare professionals to support informal caregivers. The three levels of associated factors and the interactive approaches provide direction for informing clinical nursing practice. They also provide evidence for healthcare researchers and policymakers to develop interventions and theoretical perspectives and to better allocate healthcare resources.

show abstract

Section: Factors At the Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review

Wang

Cheung

Leung

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In support of this argument, family members setting limits with persons with SMI is one of the variables most repeatedly found to be connected to family violence by this population (Ahn et al, 2012 ; Labrum, 2017 ; Labrum & Solomon, 2016 ; Straznickas et al, 1993 ; Varghese et al, 2016 ). Other identified risk factors for the occurrence of this phenomenon that provide support for the arguments in this paragraph include various forms of caregiving, premorbid poor relationship quality, high levels of contact with family members, negative expressed emotion, and the presence of psychological abuse (Elbogen et al, 2005 ; Estroff et al, 1998 ; Labrum, 2017 ; Labrum & Solomon, 2016 ; Smith et al, 2018 ; Vaddadi et al, 2002 ).…”

Section: Explanations For Family Violence By Persons With Smi and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 80%

Family Conflict and Violence by Persons with Serious Mental Illness: How Clinicians Can Intervene During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most persons living with serious mental illness (SMI) do not act violently, this population is at a modestly increased risk of engaging in violence, with family members being the most common victims. Consequently, evidence suggests that a sizable minority of family members—many of whom are caregivers—have experienced violence by their relative with SMI. The risk of conflict and violence in families of persons with SMI is likely currently heightened due to a range of challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., interruption in treatment services and the occurrence of arguments while sheltering in place together). As such, during the pandemic, it is particularly important that clinicians intervene with these populations to prevent conflict and violence and strengthen their relationships with each other. Based on available evidence, we recommend that clinical interventions aiming to do so address the following topics with family members and/or persons with SMI: mutual understanding; positive communication; effective problem-solving; symptoms and psychiatric crises; triggers to, and early warning signs of, anger and conflict; and strategies for de-escalating conflict and managing violent behavior. We offer suggestions for how clinicians can address these topics and recommend established clinical resources providing more guidance in this area.

show abstract

“…Kageyama et al, 2016a;Onwumere et al, 2014) only two of which were conducted in the USA Labrum, Solomon, & Marcus., 2020). Second, studies have employed convenience sampling, often producing grossly non-representative samples of the target population regarding race/ethnicity Labrum et al, 2020) and treatment involvement (Onwumere et al, 2014;Smith, Onwumere, Craig, & Kuipers, 2018). Third, we are unaware of any study conducted to date comparing family aggression by persons with and without SMI, precluding knowledge of how family aggression may be different when offenders have SMI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serious mental illness and incidents between adult children and parents responded to by police

Labrum

Solomon

2020

Psychol. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite a sizable minority of persons with serious mental illness (SMI) acting aggressively toward family members, little is known about this topic. The objectives of the present analyses are to examine the association of offenders' SMI status with offender behaviors and victim outcomes and to compare the immediate contextual characteristics of incidents involving offenders with and without SMI. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, all incidents of domestic violence to which police were called between adult children and their parents in Philadelphia, PA, in 2013 (N = 6191) were analyzed. Additionally, incidents in which the offender was indicated to have SMI (n = 327) were matched with a sample of incidents in which the offender was not indicated to have SMI (n = 327). Results Offenders having SMI was not associated with using a bodily weapon or gun, threatening victims, or damaging property. Offenders having SMI was associated with a decreased risk of offenders using a non-gun external weapon and victims being observed to have a complaint of pain or visible injuries. When offenders had SMI, conflict was less likely to focus on family issues and more likely to focus on offenders' behaviors and to involve contextual characteristics related to mental illness. Conclusions Efforts to prevent gun and other violence between non-intimate partner family members should target factors more strongly associated with violence than SMI (e.g. history of domestic violence, substance abuse). Intervening in family aggression by persons with SMI likely requires addressing unique circumstances these parties experience.

show abstract

Caregiver correlates of patient-initiated violence in early psychosis

Cited by 15 publications

References 63 publications

Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review

Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review

Family Conflict and Violence by Persons with Serious Mental Illness: How Clinicians Can Intervene During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

Serious mental illness and incidents between adult children and parents responded to by police

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About