Six attachment discourses: convergence, divergence and relay.

Attachment concepts are used in diverging ways, which has caused confusion in communication among researchers, among practitioners, and between researchers and practitioners, and hinders their potential for collaboration. In this essay we explore how attachment concepts may vary in meaning across six different domains: popular discourses, developmental science, social psychological science, psychiatric diagnosis, psychotherapy, and child welfare practice. We attempt to typify these forms of attachment discourse by highlighting points of convergence, divergence, and relay between the different domains. Our general conclusions are that diversity in the use of attachment concepts across different domains of application has been largely unrecognised, and that recognition of these differences would reduce confusion, help identify sites where infrastructure needs to be developed to support coordination, and strengthen opportunities for collaboration to mutual benefit. We suggest that academic attachment discourse would benefit from clarification of core terminology, including: "attachment", "internal working model", "trauma", and "dysregulation".

Self-reported and general practitioner recorded indicators of lifetime health up to age 48 according to offender type in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that people with a history of offending have worse health compared to non-offenders, but it is less clear whether all types of offenders are at similar health risks. In a New Zealand birth cohort study, Moffitt evidenced three main offending trajectories-life-course-persistent (LCP), adolescence-limited (AL) and late-onset (LO) offending, subsequently confirmed in other substantial longitudinal studies. AIMS: Our aim was to explore the relationship between these offending trajectories and both self-reported (SR) and general practitioner (GP) (primary care) recorded health indicators. METHODS: Self-reported medical data at age 48 were obtained for 394 men followed since age 8 years in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In addition, medical records were obtained from GPs for 264 of them. Health indicators from both sources were compared between each of the three established trajectories of offenders across the life course-LCP, AL, LO and the non-offenders. RESULTS: LCP offenders were found to have over twice the likelihood of disabling medical conditions according to both self-report and GP records. They were also more likely to have GP records indicating mental health problems and treatment for them. According to GP records alone, the LO offenders were also more likely to have mental health problems. The health of AL offenders appeared to be no different from that of the crime-free controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add weight to the growing evidence that LCP offending and offending that only occurs relatively late in life are likely to be the indicators of generally unhealthy and disrupted lives. This suggests that if lifestyle is to change for the better, interventions are likely to be needed for health as well as antisocial behaviour.

Health of Convicted Persons in the Third Generation of the Longitudinal Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.

Research suggests that convicted persons are more likely than non-convicted persons to suffer poor health. However, few longitudinal studies have investigated associations between health and offending across generations. Using the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, this article prospectively investigates the relationship between health and offending across generations and between genders. At the average age of 25, third generation convicted males and females reported a higher incidence of serious drug use than non-convicted persons. Convicted males reported a higher incidence of mental illness and self-harm, whereas convicted females reported a lower incidence of physical illness, mental illness, self-harm and hospitalizations when compared to non-convicted females. Convicted males reported a higher incidence of industrial accidents, sports injuries and fight injuries, but a lower incidence of road accidents, whereas convicted females were more likely to report road accidents. Like their fathers, convicted males show worse health compared to non-convicted individuals.