• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

风险评估工具是否有助于管理和降低暴力行为和再犯罪的风险?系统评价。

Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University.

出版信息

Law Hum Behav. 2018 Jun;42(3):181-214. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000280. Epub 2018 Apr 12.

DOI:10.1037/lhb0000280
PMID:29648841
Abstract

Although it is widely believed that risk assessment tools can help manage risk of violence and offending, it is unclear what evidence exists to support this view. As such, we conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis. To identify studies, we searched 13 databases, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Through this review, we identified 73 published and unpublished studies (N = 31,551 psychiatric patients and offenders, N = 10,002 professionals) that examined either professionals' risk management efforts following the use of a tool, or rates of violence or offending following the implementation of a tool. These studies included a variety of populations (e.g., adults, adolescents), tools, and study designs. The primary findings were as follows: (a) despite some promising findings, professionals do not consistently adhere to tools or apply them to guide their risk management efforts; (b) following the use of a tool, match to the risk principle is moderate and match to the needs principle is limited, as many needs remained unaddressed; (c) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that tools directly reduce violence or reoffending, as findings are mixed; and (d) tools appear to have a more beneficial impact on risk management when agencies use careful implementation procedures and provide staff with training and guidelines related to risk management. In sum, although risk assessment tools may be an important starting point, they do not guarantee effective treatment or risk management. However, certain strategies may bolster their utility. (PsycINFO Database Record

摘要

虽然人们普遍认为风险评估工具可以帮助管理暴力和犯罪风险,但目前尚不清楚有哪些证据支持这种观点。因此,我们进行了系统的回顾和叙述性综合。为了识别研究,我们搜索了 13 个数据库,查阅了参考文献,并联系了专家。通过这项审查,我们确定了 73 项已发表和未发表的研究(N=31551 名精神科患者和罪犯,N=10002 名专业人员),这些研究考察了使用工具后专业人员的风险管理工作,或实施工具后暴力或犯罪的发生率。这些研究包括各种人群(例如,成年人、青少年)、工具和研究设计。主要发现如下:(a)尽管有一些有希望的发现,但专业人员并不始终坚持使用工具或应用工具来指导他们的风险管理工作;(b)使用工具后,与风险原则的匹配是中等的,与需求原则的匹配是有限的,因为许多需求仍未得到满足;(c)没有足够的证据表明工具可以直接减少暴力或再犯罪,因为研究结果参差不齐;(d)当机构采用谨慎的实施程序并为员工提供与风险管理相关的培训和指导时,工具对风险管理的影响似乎更有益。总之,尽管风险评估工具可能是一个重要的起点,但它们并不能保证有效的治疗或风险管理。然而,某些策略可能会增强它们的效用。

相似文献

1
Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review.风险评估工具是否有助于管理和降低暴力行为和再犯罪的风险?系统评价。
Law Hum Behav. 2018 Jun;42(3):181-214. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000280. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
2
Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings.美国惩教机构中累犯风险评估工具的表现。
Psychol Serv. 2016 Aug;13(3):206-222. doi: 10.1037/ser0000075. Epub 2016 Jun 6.
3
Risk assessments and recidivism among a population-based group of Swedish offenders sentenced to life in prison.瑞典一群被判处终身监禁的在押罪犯的风险评估与再犯情况。
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Apr;26(2):124-35. doi: 10.1002/cbm.1941. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
4
Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis.风险评估工具对审前拘留率、定罪后安置率和释放率的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Law Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;43(5):397-420. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000344. Epub 2019 Aug 15.
5
The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: a meta-analysis.女性性犯罪者的累犯率较低:一项荟萃分析。
Sex Abuse. 2010 Dec;22(4):387-401. doi: 10.1177/1079063210372142.
6
Specialization in and within sexual offending in England and Wales.英格兰和威尔士性犯罪的专门化与内部情况。
Sex Abuse. 2014 Jun;26(3):225-51. doi: 10.1177/1079063213486934. Epub 2013 Jul 8.
7
Sadism and Violent Reoffending in Sexual Offenders.性犯罪者中的施虐癖与暴力再犯
Sex Abuse. 2016 Feb;28(1):46-72. doi: 10.1177/1079063214566715. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
8
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
9
Recidivism Risk Assessment for Adult Sexual Offenders.成年性犯罪者的累犯风险评估
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016 Feb;18(2):17. doi: 10.1007/s11920-015-0650-5.
10
Disentangling the risk assessment and intimate partner violence relation: Estimating mediating and moderating effects.厘清风险评估与亲密伴侣暴力关系:中介和调节效应的估计。
Law Hum Behav. 2017 Aug;41(4):344-353. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000249. Epub 2017 Jun 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Instruments for Short-Term (24 h) Violence Risk Assessment and Strategies for Managing Violence Risk Among Adolescents With Risk for Violent Behaviour: A Systematic Review.短期(24小时)暴力风险评估工具及暴力行为风险青少年的暴力风险管理策略:一项系统综述
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2025 Jul;34(4):e70110. doi: 10.1111/inm.70110.
2
Risk Perception and Risk Communication: Multi-Actor Perspectives on Pretrial Decision-Making.风险认知与风险沟通:审前决策的多主体视角
Behav Sci Law. 2025 Jul-Aug;43(4):357-373. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2717. Epub 2025 Mar 10.
3
A Compendium of Risk and Needs Tools for Assessing Male Youths At-Risk to and/or Who Have Engaged in Sexually Abusive Behaviors.
一份用于评估有性虐待行为风险和/或已实施性虐待行为的男性青少年的风险与需求工具汇编。
Sex Offending. 2022 Nov 2;17:e8085. doi: 10.5964/sotrap.8085. eCollection 2022.
4
Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta-analysis of direct comparison studies.在预测暴力、任何犯罪及性犯罪方面,风险评估工具是否比非结构化判断更准确?直接比较研究的荟萃分析。
Behav Sci Law. 2025 Jan-Feb;43(1):75-113. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2698. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
5
Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence and related forms of violence: A systematic review.旨在应对激进化至暴力及相关暴力形式的个案管理干预措施:一项系统综述。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Apr 12;20(2):e1386. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1386. eCollection 2024 Jun.
6
Evidence-based sentencing and scientific evidence.循证量刑与科学证据。
Front Psychol. 2023 Nov 14;14:1309141. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1309141. eCollection 2023.
7
Disentangling the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder, criminogenic risk, and criminal history among veterans.解析创伤后应激障碍、犯罪风险和退伍军人犯罪史之间的关系。
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Oct;47(5):579-590. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000542.
8
Approaches to Assessment and Intervention With Children and Young People Who Engage in Harmful Sexual Behavior: A Scoping Review.针对有有害性行为的儿童和青少年的评估与干预方法:一项范围综述
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024 Apr;25(2):1585-1598. doi: 10.1177/15248380231189293. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
9
Predictive validity on clinical item-level of the HKT-R divided into clinical patient classes.HKT-R 临床项目水平在临床病人分类中的预测效度。
BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 12;23(1):502. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-04994-4.
10
Predictive care: a protocol for a computational ethnographic approach to building fair models of inpatient violence in emergency psychiatry.预测性护理:一种用于构建急诊精神病学中住院暴力公平模型的计算民族志方法的方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 26;13(4):e069255. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069255.