Developing and evaluating interventions for women firesetters in high secure mental healthcare

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the implementation and evaluation of interventions for women firesetters in high secure mental healthcare at the UK’s National Women’s Service. Design/methodology/approach Two types of Arson treatment programmes for women, one delivered to individuals, the other within a group context, were developed, delivered and evaluated. The evaluation incorporated qualitative and quantitative data, including psychometric measures. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings The evaluation evidenced very high engagement with and attendance at treatment programmes, and several post-treatment gains. Participants’ ratings of programmes and qualitative feedback were similarly very positive. The study demonstrated that engaging women firesetters in their treatment is paramount and can be facilitated by consistent boundaries around therapy provision balanced with sensitivity, empathy and flexibility; providing interactive and varied teaching methods; ongoing service user involvement and recognising participants’ achievements; employing a mixed cognitive analytic therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy therapeutic approach; having input from fire service staff; and maintaining organisational support for firesetting interventions. Practical implications In all, 12 key recommendations are made for clinicians considering offering treatment programmes for women firesetters. Originality/value Amid few published papers on treating women firesetters this paper guides forensic clinicians in establishing and delivering interventions for women firesetters.

Firesetting Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis

“…Therefore, it is concerning that specialist treatment programs for both adults and children are limited. Those firesetting interventions that do exist for children with a history of firesetting are often delivered in the community by fire and rescue services (see Palmer et al, 2007), whereas adult programs are frequently implemented within mental health services (e.g., Annesley et al, 2017;Swaffer et al, 2001) or correctional settings (e.g., gannon et al, 2015). Unfortunately, many of these specialist treatment programs have not been appropriately evaluated, with small sample sizes and lack of longitudinal follow-ups prohibiting meaningful conclusions about their effectiveness.…”

Outcome evaluation of an educational programme for preventing recidivism by adult firesetters

“…A number of studies with incarcerated populations did not track community recidivism, but nonetheless report positive effects of treatment integrating FSE and CBT on more proximal, clinical variables. Populations studied include: adults with mental disorders (Annesley et al , 2017; Tyler et al , 2018); non-disordered incarcerated adults (Gannon et al , 2015); and adults with intellectual disabilities (Taylor et al , 2002; Taylor et al , 2006). Excepting Gannon et al (2015), adults in criminal justice services, not sentenced to or transferred for in-patient psychiatric treatment, have not been included in this literature [2].…”

Process evaluation of an educational programme for preventing recidivism by adult firesetters

“…In Gannon et al (2013), fire-related factors, including an interest in serious fires and poor fire safety awareness, discriminated adult firesetters from matched non-firesetter peers. Attesting to its perceived relevance in inhibiting firesetting behaviour, fire education is widely used in treatment plans for preventing adult firesetting in forensic psychiatric samples (Annesley et al , 2017; Taylor et al , 2006). Surprisingly however, the use of fire education with adults has not been empirically validated.…”