MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2530989264

Gender-based Analysis of Criminogenic Risk and Clinical Need among Ontario Forensic Patients

2015· dissertation· en· W2530989264 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krista-Lee Mathias

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2015
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiquePsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForensic sciencePsychologyMedicineGeographyArchaeology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Persons suffering from mental illness in the criminal justice system are a heterogeneous group that require specialized services to meet their diverse needs (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2012; Dupuis, MacKay & Nicol, 2013; Tusca et al., 2011; Penney et al., 2013; Jansman-Hart et al., 2011; MacPhail & Verdun-Jones, 2013; Seto, Harris, Rice, 2004; Chaimowitz, 2012; Tusca et al., 2012; Nowatzi & Grant, 2011). Further, while public safety is a high priority, basing decisions solely on security and reduction of risk do not support the recovery or rehabilitation of the clinical, social and functional needs of the forensic mental health population (Tusca et al., 2012).
\nGender can have separate and interacting effects on mental health and criminogenic needs as men and women have different experiences in how they express symptoms associated with mental illness, in service utilization and sometimes in even how these symptoms are managed (Archambault et al., 2014; Eaton et al., 2012; Nowatzki & Grant, 2011; Ramsay et al., 2001; World Health Organization, 2008). Omission of gender in forensic mental health research limits the validity and overall generalizability of findings, which in turn can affect the treatment and services provided at the individual level (Nowatzki & Grant, 2011; Van Voorhis et al., 2010).
\n\tUnderstanding gender differences in forensic mental health will allow for more refined patient-centered care. Patient-centered care addresses and integrates care for an individual’s multiple risk factors and conditions and is sensitive to their social context (Nowatzki & Grant, 2011). Further, among forensic inpatients it is crucial to incorporate criminogenic factors that reduce risk of recidivism (for example, substance abuse, harm to others); and clinical factors (for example, psychosis, anxiety); social factors (for example, social supports); functional factors (for example, cognitive impairment, IADL) that support recovery and rehabilitation of persons in the forensic mental health system (Chambers et al., 2009; Shrinkfield & Ogloff, 2014; Tusca et al., 2012). 
\nAim: This research focuses on a gender-based analysis of assessing the influences at both the individual and facility level that can predict three outcomes among forensic mental health patients in Ontario:
\n1.\tRestriction to room (seclusion/confinement to room) in forensic mental health hospitals;
\n
\n2.\tUnaccompanied leaves from forensic mental health hospitals and;
\n3.\tFreedom of movement (FoM) among forensic inpatients. 
\n
\nResults: This thesis demonstrates that factors influencing the freedom of movement (FoM) among forensic mental health patients include not only indicators of violence, aggressive behaviour and risk of harm to others, but in fact include many clinical, social and functional characteristics. For example, substance use problems, lack of insight into mental health problems, functional impairment, higher scores on the RIIDE scale and being an adult at age of first police intervention for non-violent crime were found to decrease the odds of being in a higher level of freedom of movement (easing of restrictions) among forensic inpatients. Although public safety is one the factors to consider when easing a person’s restrictions, it is not the only factor that should be considered by forensic mental health teams. 
\nThere were notable gender differences found in the easing of restrictions among forensic mental health patients. For example, female inpatients with more aggressive behaviour were more likely to be confined to the unit whereas male inpatients demonstrating the same level of aggression were more likely to be restricted to room. Essentially, tighter restrictions are being placed on male forensic inpatients when similar aggressive behaviours are being exhibited compared with female forensic inpatients. 
\nConclusion: This thesis demonstrates that factors influencing the freedom of movement (FoM) among forensic mental health patients include not only indicators of violence, aggressive behaviour and risk of harm to others, but in fact include many clinical, social and functional characteristics. Although public safety is one the factors to consider when easing a person’s restrictions, it is not the only factor considered by forensic mental health teams. As well, this research demonstrated that it is important to consider both the individual and facility level characteristics when determining gender differences in factors associated with freedom of movement.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,427
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingTravaux en français237 207