Do scores on the HCR-20 and FAM predict frequency of self-harm in females within a secure psychiatric hospital?

Campbell, Lisa C.; Beech, Anthony R.

doi:10.1080/14789949.2018.1477975

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reconviction rate may be an underestimation of the actual recidivism because not all offenders are reported, apprehended, and arrested. Moreover, the outcome was only related to recidivism, while the FAM and START are also used to assess other types of risks, and both tools have previously been found to predict self-harm and inpatient violence (Campbell & Beech, 2018; O’Shea & Dickens, 2015). For future studies, it would be important to include other outcome measures, for instance, unofficial data on violence, data on victimization, and data on self-harm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to the psychometric properties of the FAM, only preliminary results from small samples are available. They show good interrater reliability and moderate to good predictive validity for inpatient violence, threatening behavior, and self-harm during treatment (Campbell & Beech, 2018; de Vogel et al, 2014; Greig, 2014; Griswold et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Vogel

Bruggeman

Lancel

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20 V3 , and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20 V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Vogel

Bruggeman

Lancel

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Borderline personality disorder was also associated with an increased risk of suicide attempts (Stinson and Gonsalves, 2013). Further, receiving a diagnosis of a personality disorder in general was associated with an increased risk of self-harm (Beasley, 1999;Campbell and Beech, 2018;Girardi et al, 2021;O'Shea et al, 2014;Selenius et al, 2016), as well as being involved in more incidents of self-harm compared to those without a diagnosis of personality disorder (Girardi et al, 2021). Psychopathy was also associated with self-harm (Swinton et al, 1998), as well as traits of psychopathy, such as grandiose and manipulative/coercive interpersonal style and glib presentation (Daffern et al, 2010;Das et al, 2007;Vernham et al, 2015).…”

Section: Analysis Of Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and protective factors for self-harm in secure mental health hospitals: a systematic review

Steene,

Gaylor,

Ireland

2023

JACPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The current review aims to focus on how risk and protective factors for self-harm in secure mental health hospitals are captured in the literature. Design/methodology/approach Fifty-seven articles were included in a systematic review, drawn from an initial 1,119 articles, post duplicate removal. Databases included Psycinfo, Psycarticles, Psycnet, Web of Science and EBSCO host. A thematic analysis was used, which included a meta-ethnographic approach for considering qualitative papers. Findings There was a clear focus on risk factors, with eight identified (in order of occurrence): raised emotional reactivity and poor emotion regulation; poor mental health; traumatic experiences; personality disorder diagnosis and associated traits; increased use of outward aggression – dual harm; constraints of a secure environment and lack of control; previous self-harm and suicide attempts; and hopelessness. Protective factors featured less, resulting in only three themes emerging (in order of occurrence): positive social support and communication; positive coping skills; and hope/positive outlook. Research limitations/implications This includes a proposal to move focus away from “risk” factors, to incorporate “needs”, in terms of individual and environmental factors. There is also a need for more attention to focus on developing high quality research in this area. Originality/value The research captures an area where a synthesis of research has not been comprehensively undertaken, particularly with regards to capturing protective as well as risk factors.

show abstract

“…The Historical, Clinical and Risk (HCR-20) Management scale was evaluated in two studies (Campbell & Beech, 2018;O'Shea, Picchioni, Mason, Sugarman, & Dickens, 2014). It was found that higher mean total scores on HCR-20 were associated with more frequent self-harm (p < 0.001) (Campbell & Beech, 2018); however, effect sizes were not large enough (0.345-0.749) to support the use of HCR-20 in practice . Madan et al (2016) reported findings that provide some support for the reliability and validity of the C-SSRS related to its potential to correctly predict suicide-related behavior (p < 0.01).…”

Section: Suicide and Self-harm Related Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicide and Self-Harm Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Prospective Research

Saab¹,

Murphy

Meehan

et al. 2021

Archives of Suicide Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk assessment tools in predicting self-harm and suicide risk. This systematic review examines the effect of risk assessment strategies on predicting suicide and self-harm outcomes among adult healthcare service users. Method: Electronic and gray literature databases were searched for prospective research. Studies were screened and selected by independent reviewers. Quality and level of evidence assessments were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis under three categories: (1) suicide-and self-harm-related outcomes; (2) clinician assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; and (3) healthcare utilization due to self-harm or suicide. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The SAD PERSONS Scale was the most used tool. It outperformed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation in predicting hospital admissions and stay following suicide and self-harm, yet it failed to predict repeat suicide and self-harm and was not recommended for routine use. There were mixed findings relating to clinician risk assessment, with some studies recommending clinician assessment over structured tools, whilst others found that clinician assessment failed to predict future attempts and deaths. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one tool, inclusive of clinician assessment of risk, for self-harm and suicidality. The discourse around risk assessment needs to move toward a broader discussion on the safety of patients who are at risk for self-harm and/or suicide. HIGHLIGHTSThere is insufficient evidence to support using standalone risk assessment tools. There are mixed findings relating to clinician assessment of risk. Structured professional judgment is widely accepted for risk assessment.

show abstract

Do scores on the HCR-20 and FAM predict frequency of self-harm in females within a secure psychiatric hospital?

Cited by 6 publications

References 69 publications

Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Risk and protective factors for self-harm in secure mental health hospitals: a systematic review

Suicide and Self-Harm Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Prospective Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About