Search results

Prosociality is considered important in the study of offenders and associated cognitive skills: theory of mind, empathic understanding and moral reasoning, are said to enable self-control and reduce the risk of offending behaviours. Previous research has made associations between these skills and executive functioning; however, research into a link between them, in an offending population, is limited. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

To further understand the practicalities of this, the present study considered the predictive abilities of the constructs believed to underpin executive functioning: working memory, cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control, in relation to theory of mind, empathic understanding and moral reasoning. In total, 200 male and female offenders completed measures in all six constructs.

Using path analysis working memory was demonstrated to be predictive of theory of mind and empathic understanding, cognitive flexibility was found to be predictive of theory of mind, and inhibitory control was found to be predictive of theory of mind, empathic understanding and moral reasoning.

The study focussed on offenders serving a custodial sentence of six months or less and did not differentiate between crime categories or take into consideration the socio-environmental backgrounds or ethnicity. Therefore, considering these things could further establish the generalisability of the current findings. It is noted that the more focussed the intervention is to the specific needs of an offender, the greater the impact will be. Therefore, pre-screening tests for the constructs discussed may be able to more accurately assess an offenders’ suitability for a programme, or indeed tailor it to meet the specific needs of that person.

These findings may enable practitioners to more accurately assess offenders’ suitability for interventions aimed at reducing offending behaviours by improving levels of prosociality and develop more focussed programmes to meet the specific needs of individual offenders to reduce re-offending.

As recommended in the study, a more tailored approach to offender rehabilitation may be a potential aid to reducing levels of recidivism.

The present study adds to the literature as it is the first to consider whether the constructs of executive functioning can predict levels of theory of mind, empathic understanding and moral reasoning and so provide a more accurate method in assessing the cognitive abilities of offenders prior to participation in rehabilitative interventions.

To compare patients’ views on quality of care in different countries using a theory‐based instrument, while at the same time controlling for the following potential confounders: type of care system (private vs public), type of care (kind of health problem), gender, age, and subjective wellbeing.

Patients capable of communicating in wards (medical and surgical departments) and day surgery departments in England, France, Norway, and Sweden were recruited consecutively, to participate in a programme run by the health‐care company Capio. Ward patients: England (n =1,236), France (n =1,051), Norway (n =226), and Sweden (n =428). Day surgery patients: England (n =887), France (n =544), Norway (n =101), and Sweden (n =742). Average response rate across settings: approximately 75 per cent. Patients evaluated the quality of the care they actually received and the subjective importance they ascribed to different aspects of care. The questionnaire “Quality from the patient's perspective” (QPP) was used (modified short version).

Cross‐national comparisons were made within each of the two care contexts (wards and day surgery) separately for men and women. Quality of care evaluations were adjusted for age and subjective wellbeing. English and French patients scored significantly higher than Norwegian and Swedish on both kinds of ratings (perceived reality and subjective importance), in both kinds of care contexts, and in both sexes.

Cross‐national comparisons of patients’ views on care can give meaningful guidance for practitioners only if they are context‐specific and if well‐known confounders are controlled for.