ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.
Insomnia has a negative impact on mental health and is a potential risk factor for impulsive and problematic behavior. This multicenter, cross-sectional study investigated the prevalence of insomnia and underlying and maintaining factors in a group of forensic psychiatric inpatients (N = 281). Insomnia severity, subjective sleep quality, sleep hygiene and erroneous cognitions about sleep were measured with the Insomnia Severity Index, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Sleep Hygiene questionnaire and Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep, respectively. Impulsivity was derived from risk assessment instruments routinely completed by trained professionals. Almost half of the patients (48.7%) appeared to suffer from insomnia. Particularly moderate-severe insomnia (26.7%) was significantly associated with worse sleep quality, poorer sleep hygiene, stronger endorsement of dysfunctional sleep cognitions and higher impulsivity scores. It can be concluded that insomnia is rather common in forensic psychiatric patients. Insomnia appears related to various sleep hygiene behaviors and sleep-related cognitions, and probably also to diverse situational and environmental factors as well as a lack of autonomy. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, with some adjustments specific for this population, may be an effective intervention, ameliorating sleep problems and possibly also emotional and behavioral dysregulation.
LINK
This study examined if a macro-, meso-, and micro outcome measurement instrument that constitutes the evaluation stage of a Dutch forensic psychiatric outcome monitor, the Hoeven Outcome Monitor (HOM), can provide a first step towards a more evidence based groundwork in forensic mental health. General, serious, very serious, special, and tbs meriting recidivism during treatment, after treatment, and overall were charted for forensic psychiatric patients discharged from a Dutch forensic psychiatric centre between 1999 and 2008 (N = 164). Re-conviction data were obtained from the official Criminal Records System, and the mean follow-up time was 116.2 months. First, the results showed that the macro-measurements provide comparative outcome measures to generate insight into the overall effectiveness of forensic psychiatric treatment. Second, the meso-measurements yielded clinically relevant treatment outcome data for all discharged patients to generate a complete view of treatment effectiveness. Finally, the micro-measurements allowed access to detailed patient and treatment effectiveness assessments that provides the empirical foundation to conduct aetiological research into the prediction and control of high-risk behaviour. Thus, an outcome measurement instrument in line with Evidence Based Medicine and best practice guidelines was designed that provides an empirically sound evaluation framework for treatment effectiveness, and an impetus for the development of effective interventions to generate an evidence based groundwork in forensic mental health.
LINK
