Risk of criminal victimisation in outpatients with common mental health disorders

Crime victimisation is a serious problem in psychiatric patients. However, research has focused on patients with severe mental illness and few studies exist that address victimisation in other outpatient groups, such as patients with depression. Due to large differences in methodology of the studies that address crime victimisation, a comparison of prevalence between psychiatric diagnostic groups is hard to make. Objectives of this study were to determine and compare one-year prevalence of violent and non-violent criminal victimisation among outpatients from different diagnostic psychiatric groups and to examine prevalence differences with the general population.Criminal victimisation prevalence was measured in 300 outpatients living in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with outpatients with depressive disorder (n = 102), substance use disorder (SUD, n = 106) and severe mental illness (SMI, n = 92) using a National Crime Victimisation Survey, and compared with a matched general population sample (n = 10865).Of all outpatients, 61% reported experiencing some kind of victimisation over the past year; 33% reported violent victimisation (3.5 times more than the general population) and 36% reported property crimes (1.2 times more than the general population). Outpatients with depression (67%) and SUD (76%) were victimised more often than SMI outpatients (39%). Younger age and hostile behaviour were associated with violent victimisation, while being male and living alone were associated with non-violent victimisation. Moreover, SUD was associated with both violent and non-violent victimisation.Outpatients with depression, SUD, and SMI are at increased risk of victimisation compared to the general population. Furthermore, our results indicate that victimisation of violent and non-violent crimes is more common in outpatients with depression and SUD than in outpatients with SMI living independently in the community

Формування світогляду О. Кониського

Crime victimisation is a serious problem in psychiatric patients. However, research has focused on patients with severe mental illness and few studies exist that address victimisation in other outpatient groups, such as patients with depression. Due to large differences in methodology of the studies that address crime victimisation, a comparison of prevalence between psychiatric diagnostic groups is hard to make. Objectives of this study were to determine and compare one-year prevalence of violent and non-violent criminal victimisation among outpatients from different diagnostic psychiatric groups and to examine prevalence differences with the general population.Criminal victimisation prevalence was measured in 300 outpatients living in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with outpatients with depressive disorder (n = 102), substance use disorder (SUD, n = 106) and severe mental illness (SMI, n = 92) using a National Crime Victimisation Survey, and compared with a matched general population sample (n = 10865).Of all outpatients, 61% reported experiencing some kind of victimisation over the past year; 33% reported violent victimisation (3.5 times more than the general population) and 36% reported property crimes (1.2 times more than the general population). Outpatients with depression (67%) and SUD (76%) were victimised more often than SMI outpatients (39%). Younger age and hostile behaviour were associated with violent victimisation, while being male and living alone were associated with non-violent victimisation. Moreover, SUD was associated with both violent and non-violent victimisation.Outpatients with depression, SUD, and SMI are at increased risk of victimisation compared to the general population. Furthermore, our results indicate that victimisation of violent and non-violent crimes is more common in outpatients with depression and SUD than in outpatients with SMI living independently in the community

Victimisation in adults with severe mental illness: prevalence and risk factors

Patients with a severe mental illness (SMI) are more likely to experience victimisation than the general population. To examine the prevalence of victimisation in people with SMI, and the relationship between symptoms, treatment facility and indices of substance use/misuse and perpetration, in comparison with the general population. Victimisation was assessed among both randomly selected patients with SMI (n = 216) and the general population (n = 10 865). Compared with the general population, a high prevalence of violent victimisation was found among the SMI group (22.7% v. 8.5%). Compared with out-patients and patients in a sheltered housing facility, in-patients were most often victimised (violent crimes: 35.3%; property crimes: 47.1%). Risk factors among the SMI group for violent victimisation included young age and disorganisation, and risk factors for property crimes included being an in-patient, disorganisation and cannabis use. The SMI group were most often assaulted by someone they knew. Caregivers should be aware that patients with SMI are at risk of violent victimisation. Interventions need to be developed to reduce this vulnerabilit

Results of univariate and multivariate hierarchical logistic regression analyses (method ENTER) for predictors of violent victimisation and victimisation of property crimes in psychiatric patients (n = 300).

<p>Step 1 Violent crimes: Omnibus test; Step P = 0.025, Model P = 0.025. Hosmer en Lemeshow; P = 0.901. Nagelkerke; R2 = 0.066.</p><p>Step 2 Violent crimes: Omnibus test; Step P = 0.265, Model P = 0.029. Hosmer en Lemeshow; P = 0.860. Nagelkerke; R2 = 0.078.</p><p>Step 1 Property crimes: Omnibus test; Step P = 0.002, Model P = 0.002. Hosmer en Lemeshow; P = 0.995. Nagelkerke; R2 = 0.090.</p><p>Step 2 Property crimes: Omnibus test; Step P = 0.014, Model P = 0.000. Hosmer en Lemeshow; P = 0.324. Nagelkerke; R2 = 0.181.</p><p>Results of univariate and multivariate hierarchical logistic regression analyses (method ENTER) for predictors of violent victimisation and victimisation of property crimes in psychiatric patients (n = 300).</p

Twelve month prevalence rates of victimisation of patients with depression, substance use disorder and severe mental illness, psychiatric patients overall and the general population.

<p>^a Pearson Chi-square indicates a significant difference between the depressive and the SUD group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^b Pearson Chi-square indicates a significant difference between the depression and the SMI group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^c Pearson Chi-square indicates a significant difference between the SUD and the SMI group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^d IVM data was weighed for gender, age, ethnicity, level of education and living area.</p><p>‡ Ratio of overall reported prevalence in psychiatric patients to prevalence reported by general population</p><p># The sample rate is 0; confidence bounds are not reported.</p><p>Twelve month prevalence rates of victimisation of patients with depression, substance use disorder and severe mental illness, psychiatric patients overall and the general population.</p

Location and perpetrator of most recent violent victimisation incident (sexual offences, threats and assaults) for patients with depression, substance use disorder and severe mental illness.

<p>^‡ Public space includes: victimisation in streets, public transport, parks, parking lots and beaches.</p><p>* 3 missing values</p><p>Location and perpetrator of most recent violent victimisation incident (sexual offences, threats and assaults) for patients with depression, substance use disorder and severe mental illness.</p

Socio-demographics and substance use characteristics

<p>* p is a result of ANOVA for BPRS items and χ² test for categorical variables for differences between Depression, SUD & SMI.</p><p>^a Statistical analysis indicates a significant difference between the depression and the SUD group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^b Statistical analysis indicates a significant difference between the depression and the SMI group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^c Statistical analysis indicates a significant difference between the SUD and the SMI group (asymptotic (2-sided) < 0.05).</p><p>^d Cramer’s V</p><p>^e Eta squared (η²)</p><p>Socio-demographics and substance use characteristics</p