Putting the usability of wearable technology in forensic psychiatry to the test: a randomized crossover trial.

Introduction: Forensic psychiatric patients receive treatment to address their violent and aggressive behavior with the aim of facilitating their safe reintegration into society. On average, these treatments are effective, but the magnitude of effect sizes tends to be small, even when considering more recent advancements in digital mental health innovations. Recent research indicates that wearable technology has positive effects on the physical and mental health of the general population, and may thus also be of use in forensic psychiatry, both for patients and staff members. Several applications and use cases of wearable technology hold promise, particularly for patients with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning, as these devices are thought to be user-friendly and provide continuous daily feedback. Method: In the current randomized crossover trial, we addressed several limitations from previous research and compared the (continuous) usability and acceptance of four selected wearable devices. Each device was worn for one week by staff members and patients, amounting to a total of four weeks. Two of the devices were general purpose fitness trackers, while the other two devices used custom made applications designed for bio-cueing and for providing insights into physiological reactivity to daily stressors and events. Results: Our findings indicated significant differences in usability, acceptance and continuous use between devices. The highest usability scores were obtained for the two fitness trackers (Fitbit and Garmin) compared to the two devices employing custom made applications (Sense-IT and E4 dashboard). The results showed similar outcomes for patients and staff members. Discussion: None of the devices obtained usability scores that would justify recommendation for future use considering international standards; a finding that raises concerns about the adaptation and uptake of wearable technology in the context of forensic psychiatry. We suggest that improvements in gamification and motivational aspects of wearable technology might be helpful to tackle several challenges related to wearable technology.

The ADaptive Ability Performance Test (ADAPT): A new instrument for measuring adaptive skills in people with intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning.

BACKGROUND: Since the DSM-5, adaptive functioning has taken a prominent place in the classification of intellectual disability (ID). The ADAPT was developed to assess adaptive skills in individuals with ID. METHOD: A total of 2,081 ADAPTs from clients with suspected ID or borderline intellectual functioning and 129 ADAPTs from people from the general population (non-ID) were collected, along with background characteristics. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the ADAPT was high (α = 0.98). ADAPT scores were positively associated with IQ, educational level and level of independent living. Furthermore, individuals without ID scored significantly higher than the clients on all of the 65 ADAPT items. Reference values were established for different IQ groups and living situations. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the ADAPT is a valid instrument for measuring adaptive skills in individuals with ID. The reference values may be used for the purpose of estimating the level of ID and the needed intensity of support.

Predicting rehospitalization in patients treated with antipsychotics: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of rehospitalization in patients treated with antipsychotics is important for identifying patients in need of additional support to prevent hospitalization. Our aim was to identify factors that predict rehospitalization in patients treated with antipsychotics at discharge from a psychiatric hospital. METHODS: Adult patients suffering from schizophrenia, psychotic or bipolar I disorders who had been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for ⩾7 days and were treated with oral antipsychotics at discharge were included. The main outcome was rehospitalization within 6 months after discharge. A prediction model for rehospitalization was constructed including: patient/disease and medication characteristics, patients' beliefs about medicines, and healthcare-professional-rated assessment for all patients. The patients were stratified by diagnosis (schizophrenia and nonschizophrenia). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included and 33.3% of them were rehospitalized within 6 months after discharge. The variables that predicted rehospitalization were duration of hospitalization, patients' attitude towards medicine use, and healthcare-professional-rated assessment with an AUCROC of 0.82. Rehospitalization for patients with schizophrenia could be predicted (AUCROC = 0.71) by the Global Assessment of Functioning score, age, and harm score. Rehospitalization was predicted (AUCROC = 0.73) for nonschizophrenia patients with, for example rehospitalization predicted by the nurse. CONCLUSIONS: Rehospitalization was predicted by a combination of variables from the patient/disease and medication characteristics, patients' attitude towards medicine use, and healthcare-professional-rated assessment. These variables can be assessed relatively easily at discharge to predict rehospitalization within 6 months.

The correspondence between the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised and two other indicators for aggressive incidents.

Previous research has shown good psychometric properties of the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R). However, it has never been investigated what proportion of aggressive incidents occurring in facilities is documented with the SOAS-R. Furthermore, if incidents are underreported, the consequences for the categorization of clients into aggressive and nonaggressive subgroups based on the SOAS-R are unknown. To examine this, in four inpatient psychiatric facilities for adults with mild intellectual disabilities, aggressive incidents were documented with the SOAS-R and two other indicators of aggressive incidents: the daily staff reports on clients' behavior and reports on of the use of restraints. Less than half of the incidents documented with the staff and restraint reports were also documented with the SOAS-R. On the other way around, however, it was also found that a substantial proportion of incidents reported on SOAS-R forms were not documented in the daily staff reports, which points to a more general problem of underreporting aggressive behavior. Apart from that, categorization of clients into an aggressive and a nonaggressive subgroup with SOAS-R data collected during 1 month or longer corresponded largely with the categorization based on both other indicators. This study showed that underreporting of aggressive incidents is likely to occur with the SOAS-R, making the instrument less suitable to assess absolute aggression incidence in facilities. Still, the SOAS-R seems a good instrument to categorize clients into aggressive and nonaggressive subgroups. Ways to improve the compliance of the ward team to document all aggressive incidents are addressed in the Discussion section of this article.

Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of aggressive behavior in general adult psychiatry: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for pharmacologic management of outwardly directed aggressive behavior in general adult psychiatry. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane libraries from 1966 through March 2005 were used to identify relevant studies. The keywords aggression, violence, anger, and hostility combined with drug therapy, psychotropic drugs, adrenergic beta-antagonists, anticonvulsants, anti-depressants, antipsychotic agents, benzodiazepines, and lithium were searched. Furthermore, the retrieved publications were searched for additional references. STUDY SELECTION: All randomized controlled trials addressing pharmacotherapy for aggression or aggression-related symptoms were included, except studies addressing the "emergency situation" and studies conducted in specialized psychiatric or non-psychiatric settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Evidence synthesis was performed using the "best-evidence principle." Two authors independently adjudicated methodological quality and generalizability to daily clinical practice. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. On the basis of a best-evidence synthesis model, weak evidence for antiaggressive effects of antipsychotics, anti-depressants, anticonvulsants, and beta-adrenergic-blocking drugs was found. Atypical antipsychotics appeared superior to typical antipsychotics. The use of various outcome measures and insufficient data reporting in the individual studies hampered the quantitative assessment of efficacy across studies. Further limitations of the available randomized controlled trials included small sample sizes, short study duration, and poor generalizability to daily clinical practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas pharmacotherapy is frequently applied in aggressive patients, only weak evidence of efficacy of various drug classes was found. Consensus about the use of aggression measurement scales in clinical trials is necessary for future research. Furthermore, large-scale trials with more naturalistic designs, as opposed to classical randomized controlled trials with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, may be advisable in order to obtain results that are more generalizable to daily clinical practice.