Evaluating the Relationship Between Intimate Partner Violence-Related Training and Mental Health Professionals' Assessment of Relationship Problems.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health problem associated with increased risk of developing mental health conditions. Assessment of IPV in mental health settings is important for appropriate treatment planning and referral; however, lack of training in how to identify and respond to IPV presents a significant barrier to assessment. To address this issue, the World Health Organization (WHO) advanced a series of evidence-based recommendations for IPV-related training programs. This study examines the relationship between mental health professionals' experiences of IPV-related training, including the degree to which their training resembles WHO training recommendations, and their accuracy in correctly identifying relationship problems. Participants were psychologists and psychiatrists (N = 321) from 24 countries who agreed to participate in an online survey in French, Japanese, or Spanish. They responded to questions regarding their IPV-related training (i.e., components and hours of training) and rated the presence or absence of clinically significant relationship problems and maltreatment (RPM) and mental disorders across four case vignettes. Participants who received IPV-related training, and whose training was more recent and more closely resembled WHO training recommendations, were more likely than those without training to accurately identify RPM when it was present. Clinicians regardless of IPV-related training were equally likely to misclassify normative couple issues as clinically significant RPM. Findings suggest that IPV-related training assists clinicians in making more accurate assessments of patients presenting with clinically significant relationship problems, including IPV. These data inform recommendations for IPV-related training programs and suggest that training should be repeated, multicomponent, and include experiential training exercises, and guidelines for distinguishing normative relationship problems from clinically significant RPM.

Exploring Mental Health Professionals' Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence-Related Training: Results From a Global Survey.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global public health problem that has been shown to lead to serious mental health consequences. Due to its frequent co-occurrence with psychiatric disorders, it is important to assess for IPV in mental health settings to improve treatment planning and referral. However, lack of training in how to identify and respond to IPV has been identified as a barrier for the assessment of IPV. The present study seeks to better understand this IPV-related training gap by assessing global mental health professionals' experiences of IPV-related training and factors that contribute to their likelihood of receiving training. Participants were French-, Spanish-, and Japanese-speaking psychologists and psychiatrists (N = 321) from 24 nations differing on variables related to IPV, including IPV prevalence, IPV-related norms, and IPV-related laws. Participants responded to an online survey asking them to describe their experiences of IPV-related training (i.e., components and hours of training) and were asked to rate the frequency with which they encountered IPV in clinical practice and their level of knowledge and experience related to relationship problems; 53.1% of participants indicated that they had received IPV-related training. Clinicians from countries with relatively better implemented laws addressing IPV and those who encountered IPV more often in their regular practice were more likely to have received training. Participants who had received IPV-related training, relative to those without training, were more likely to report greater knowledge and experience related to relationship problems. Findings suggest that clinicians' awareness of IPV and the institutional context in which they practice are related to training. Training, in turn, is associated with subjective appraisals of knowledge and experience related to relationship problems. Increasing institutional efforts to address IPV (e.g., implementing IPV legislation) may contribute to improved practices with regard to IPV in mental health settings.

A case-controlled field study evaluating ICD-11 proposals for relational problems and intimate partner violence.

Background/Objective: Intimate partner relationship problems and intimate partner abuse and neglect - referred to in this paper as "relational problems and maltreatment" - have substantial and well-documented impact on both physical and mental health. However, classification guidelines, such as those found in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), are vague and unlikely to support consistent application. Revised guidelines proposed for ICD-11 are much more operationalized. We used standardized clinical vignette conditions with an international panel of clinicians to test if ICD-11 changes resulted in improved classification accuracy. Method: English-speaking mental health professionals (N = 738) from 65 nations applied ICD-10 or ICD-11 (proposed) guidelines with experimentally manipulated case presentations of presence or absence of (a) individual mental health diagnoses and (b) relational problems or maltreatment. Results: ICD-11, compared with ICD-10, guidelines resulted in significantly better classification accuracy, although only in the presence of co-morbid mental health problems. Clinician factors (e. g., gender, language, world region) largely did not impact classification performance. Conclusions: Despite being considerably more explicated, raters' performance with ICD-11 guidelines reveals training issues that should be addressed prior to the release of ICD-11 in 2018 (e. g., overriding the guidelines with pre-existing archetypes for relationship problems and physical and psychological abuse).

Antecedentes/Objetivo: Los problemas en la relación de pareja y relacionados con abuso y negligencia de pareja, referidos como "problemas relacionales y maltrato", tienen un importante impacto en la salud física y mental. Sin embargo, guías de clasificación, como la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades (CIE-10), son vagas y su aplicación es inconsistente. Las guías propuestas por el CIE-11 son más operacionales. Junto con un panel de clínicos, utilizamos viñetas clínicas estandarizadas, para evaluar si los cambios propuestos por CIE-11 mejoraban la precisión de la clasificación. Método: Profesionales de la salud de habla inglesa (N=738) de 65 naciones compararon la aplicación del CIE-10 y CIE-11 en casos experimentales, estableciendo presencia o ausencia de (a) diagnósticos individuales de salud mental y (b) problemas de relaciones o maltrato. Resultados: CIE-11 tuvo resultados significativamente más precisos, aunque solo en presencia de comorbilidades de salud mental. Factores como género, idioma y región no presentaron mayor alteración. Conclusiones: Aunque el CIE-11 está mejor explicado, este estudio revela problemas de capacitación que deberían abordarse antes de su publicación en 2018.

A case-controlled field study evaluating ICD-11 proposals for relational problems and intimate partner violence / Estudio de campo con casos controlados para evaluar propuestas de la CIE-11 en problemas relacionales y de violencia de pareja

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Intimate partner relationship problems and intimate partner abuse and neglect - referred to in this paper as "relational problems and maltreatment" - have substantial and well-documented impact on both physical and mental health. However, classification guidelines, such as those found in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), are vague and unlikely to support consistent application. Revised guidelines proposed for ICD-11 are much more operationalized. We used standardized clinical vignette conditions with an international panel of clinicians to test if ICD-11 changes resulted in improved classification accuracy. METHOD: English-speaking mental health professionals (N = 738) from 65 nations applied ICD-10 or ICD-11 (proposed) guidelines with experimentally manipulated case presentations of presence or absence of (a) individual mental health diagnoses and (b) relational problems or maltreatment. RESULTS: ICD-11, compared with ICD-10, guidelines resulted in significantly better classification accuracy, although only in the presence of co-morbid mental health problems. Clinician factors (e. g., gender, language, world region) largely did not impact classification performance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being considerably more explicated, raters' performance with ICD-11 guidelines reveals training issues that should be addressed prior to the release of ICD-11 in 2018 (e. g., overriding the guidelines with pre-existing archetypes for relationship problems and physical and psychological abuse)

ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Los problemas en la relación de pareja y relacionados con abuso y negligencia de pareja, referidos como "problemas relacionales y maltrato", tienen un importante impacto en la salud física y mental. Sin embargo, guías de clasificación, como la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades (CIE-10), son vagas y su aplicación es inconsistente. Las guías propuestas por el CIE-11 son más operacionales. Junto con un panel de clínicos, utilizamos viñetas clínicas estandarizadas, para evaluar si los cambios propuestos por CIE-11 mejoraban la precisión de la clasificación. MÉTODO: Profesionales de la salud de habla inglesa (N=738) de 65 naciones compararon la aplicación del CIE-10 y CIE-11 en casos experimentales, estableciendo presencia o ausencia de (a) diagnósticos individuales de salud mental y (b) problemas de relaciones o maltrato. RESULTADOS: CIE-11 tuvo resultados significativamente más precisos, aunque solo en presencia de comorbilidades de salud mental. Factores como género, idioma y región no presentaron mayor alteración. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el CIE-11 está mejor explicado, este estudio revela problemas de capacitación que deberían abordarse antes de su publicación en 2018

Revisiting backward recall and benchmark memory effects: a reply to Bireta et al. (2010).

When participants are asked to recall lists of items in the reverse order, known as backward recall, several benchmark memory phenomena, such as the word length effect, are abolished (Bireta et al. Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010). Bireta et al. (Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010) suggested that in backward recall, reliance on order retention is increased at the expense of item retention, leading to the abolition of item-based phenomena. In a subsequent study, however, Guérard and Saint-Aubin (in press) showed that four lexical factors known to modulate item retention were unaffected by recall direction. In a series of five experiments, we examined the source of the discrepancy between the two studies. We revisited the effects of phonological similarity, word length, articulatory suppression, and irrelevant speech, using open and closed pools of words in backward and forward recall. The results are unequivocal in showing that none of these effects are influenced by recall direction, suggesting that Bireta et al.'s (Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010) results are the consequence of their particular stimuli.