Search results

This paper aims to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK general population and in the low-risk clinical population and to identify the methodological challenges presented by this task.

A rapid review of the evidence was conducted. Data were extracted with the help of pre-designed tools and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. The data extracted was both qualitative and quantitative.

In the general population, crime survey data gave a range of past-year IPV prevalence from 1.8% to 4.5%. This was higher in women than men (2.5%–6.3% vs 0.9%–2.7%). In both the general and low-risk clinical population, there was little data on pregnant women or gay men and lesbians. No significant relationships between IPV and ethnicity were found. Different surveys used different definitions of IPV and domestic violence, making it difficult to give an accurate estimate. There were also problems with data accuracy.

This research is original and contributes to the knowledge about IPV screening and if prevalence studies help.

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) in non-high-risk settings (defined here as those in which routine IPV screening does not take place in the UK, such as in general practice).

Rapid review as defined by Grant and Booth – it is used under time or financial constraint to assess what is known using systematic review methods. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to May 2019 were searched for “intimate partner violence” and synonyms plus terms related to screening and interventions. A Medline update was performed in August 2020. Data were extracted with the help of a predesigned tool and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. Data were mixed quantitative and qualitative.

The search yielded 10 relevant papers on screening (6 on accuracy and 4 on effectiveness) and 13 on intervention. These showed evidence of the effectiveness of simple screening tools and of subsequent interventions. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a change in UK guidelines which currently do not recommend their use outside of current high-risk environments.

Clinicians outside of high-risk areas should consider the use of some IPV screening tools and interventions but only within research protocols to gather further evidence.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The aim of the paper is to share the experience of multi‐national, funded research practice and to explore some of the issues related to conducting such studies in forensic practice. The BEST Index is a normative forensic risk assessment instrument that can be implemented through the different levels of security. It benefits the patient as it is a structured assessment instrument for assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating care in the context of risk assessment. A large‐scale, five‐country EU‐funded study was conducted to validate the instrument and to develop educational tools. Some published description of research experience exists but does not cover the issues for people new to high‐level research studies or the partnership working that is required to make multi‐national, multi‐lingual studies work to the benefit of the patient. Many issues arose during the study and those considered important to deal with, and the actions taken, are described, including ethical issues, management and organisational issues, and ‘the long haul’. Being new to research and coming straight in to this kind of large‐scale clinical research requires preparation and thought.

A major difficulty identified many years ago in psychiatric care is the shortage of appropriate instruments with which to carry out valid and reliable therapeutic assessments which are behaviourally based and therefore appropriate for use in a variety of contexts. The aim of this project was to ascertain the utility of a forensic nursing risk assessment tool - Behavioural Status Index (BEST-Index). The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A multi-site cross-sectional survey was undertaken using mixed method design. Quantitative data was generated using BEST-Index to allow comparisons across three different levels of security (high, medium and low) in Scotland and Ireland. Qualitative data were gathered from patients and multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members using semi-structured interviews and questionnaire.

Measured over an 18-month period, there was a statistically significant improvement in behaviour, when comparing patients in high and medium secure hospitals. Two key themes emerged from patient and staff perspectives: “acceptance of the process” and “production and delivery of information”, respectively. The wider MDT acknowledge the value of nursing risk assessment, but require adequate information to enable them to interpret findings. Collaborating with patients to undertake risk assessments can enhance future care planning.

Studies using cross-section can only provide information at fixed points in time.

The BEST-Index assessment tool is well established in clinical practice and has demonstrated good utility.

This project has served to highlight the unique contribution of BEST-Index to both staff and patients alike and confirm its robustness and versatility across differing levels of security in Scottish and Irish forensic mental health services.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

Civil wrongdoings with consequent financial and other loss or damage to employers, employees and third parties may result in the course of various trade union activities. These day to day trade union activities take a variety of forms. The most common ones are inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and intimidation. Each of these activities constitutes a tort which, unless the statutory immunities apply, would normally give rise at common law to an action for damages or, as is more frequent, enable the aggrieved party to obtain an injunction.

Life studies are a rich source for further research on the role of the Afro‐American woman in society. They are especially useful to gain a better understanding of the Afro‐American experience and to show the joys, sorrows, needs, and ideals of the Afro‐American woman as she struggles from day to day.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.