Search

Antecedentes. La valoración del riesgo de violencia es un requisito fundamental en la toma de decisiones profesionales que implican prevenir, intervenir o informar sobre la conducta de las personas. El uso de herramientas estructuradas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia ha mostrado mejoría en la precisión de las evaluaciones basadas exclusivamente en el juicio clínico o en la pericia de un experto en contextos psiquiátricos, penitenciarios y jurídicos. Objetivo. Este estudio presenta los resultados de la primera encuesta sobre las prácticas profesionales asociadas al uso de herramientas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Materiales y métodos. La información fue recogida mediante la administración de una encuesta en internet que fue distribuida por correo electrónico a los miembros de organizaciones profesionales. Resultados. De manera similar a los contextos profesionales del resto del mundo, las escalas de psicopatía de Robert Hare (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised y Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) y el Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 encabezaron la lista de las herramientas más usadas tanto por elección personal como por requisito institucional. Conclusiones. Se ofrecen datos novedosos sobre la prevalencia de uso y la utilidad percibida de las herramientas estructuradas, así como sobre otras cuestiones relacionadas a las prácticas profesionales de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España que pueden orientar tanto a los profesionales de contextos sanitarios, correccionales y forenses, como a los responsables de las instituciones en la elección de las herramientas a implementar para asistirlos en la toma de decisiones. Background. Violence risk assessment is a key requirement in professional decision making involving prevention, intervention or reporting on human behavior. The use of structured tools for violence risk assessment has shown to improve the accuracy of assessments based exclusively on clinical judgment or expertise in psychiatric, correctional and legal settings. Objectives. This study presents results of the first survey about professional practices associated with tools for violence risk assessment in Spain. Materials and methods. The information was collected by administering an online-based survey that was distributed by e-mail to members of professional organizations around the country. Results. As in professional contexts worldwide, the Robert Hare's psychopathy scales (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 topped the list of the most used tools both by professional choice and institutional requirement. Conclusions. We provide novel data on the prevalence of use and the perceived utility of specific tools, as well as on other issues related to the professional practice of violence risk assessment in Spain, which can guide professional in the health care, correctional and forensic settings, as well as those responsible for decisions in institutions about choosing which tool to implement.

Introducción: En las últimas décadas hubo importantes avances científicos en la sistematización de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia, pero esas contribuciones no se implementan de manera rápida ni uniforme en la práctica latinoamericana. Objetivos: Describir qué instrumentos de evaluación de riesgo de violencia se utilizan en Chile y Argentina, y qué características tiene esa práctica profesional. Material y método: Se realizó una encuesta a través de la web, a profesionales relacionados con la salud mental registrados en listas nacionales e internacionales de 17 países, entre septiembre y diciembre del 2012. En el estudio se informan resultados de 46 respondientes de Chile y Argentina. Resultados: El 78% de los psiquiatras, el 93% de los psicólogos y el 100% de los trabajadores sociales utilizaron instrumentos para ERV; la amplia mayoría los consideró relativamente útiles. Los instrumentos más utilizados fueron HCR-20, PCL-R y PCL-SV. Introduction: The last decades revealed important scientific advances in the systemization of violence risk assessment; nevertheless, the implementation in practice of these contributions have neither been fast nor uniform in Latin America. Objectives: The article is aimed at describing the instruments for violence risk assessment used in Chile and Argentina and the features of this professional practice. Material and method: A web survey was carried out among mental health-related professionals registered in the national and international lists of 17 countries between September and December 2012. The results obtained from 46 respondents from Chile and Argentina are reported in this study: 78% of the psychiatrists, 93% of the psychologists and 100% of the social workers involved have employed violence risk assessment (VRA) instruments deemed relatively useful by a wide majority, being HCR-20, PCL-R and PCL-SV the most Introdução: Nas últimas décadas houve avanços científi- cos importantes na sistematização da avaliação do risco da violência, mas aquelas contribuições não são executadas rapidamente nem uniformemente na prática latinoamericana. Objetivos: Descrever que instrumentos da avaliação do risco da violência são usados no Chile e na Argentina, e que características tem essa prática profissional. Material e método: Uma pesquisa foi feita através da Web, aos profissionais relacionados à saúde mental registrados nas listas nacionais e internacionais de 17 países, entre setembro e dezembro do 2012. No estudo os resultados de 46 respondentes do Chile e da Argentina são informados. Resultados: 78% dos psiquiatra, 93% dos psicólogos e o 100% dos trabalhadores sociais usaram instrumentos para ERV; a ampla maioria os considerou relativamente úteis. Os instrumentos mais usados foram HCR-20, PCL-R e PCL-SV.

Background. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis often come to conflicting conclusions on key issues and have a number of potentially important methodological limitations. A metareview represents one approach to a descriptive investigation of such issues in review literatures; this involves a systematic review of previously published reviews. Metareviews report on the areas that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have covered, investigating the methodological quality of such reviews, comparing methods for reporting results with recommended standards in the field of systematic reviewing and highlighting areas which could benefit from further research. Objective.The present report was aimed at critically examining the reporting quality of available medical metareviews and encouraging the use of such innovative approach to develop an instrument for assessing metareviews’ methodological quality. Materials and methods. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for previous medical metareviews as of February 11th, 2012. References regarding identified reports and annotated bibliographies were used to supplement the search. Results. Four metareviews meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and descriptively analysed. The first set of standardised metareview reporting guidelines’ checklist (metareview assessment of reporting quality - MARQ), using quality checklists developed for primary studies and reviews as models, was introduced to enable transparent and consistent reporting of metareview methodology. An average of 15 (SD = 3) MARQ criteria were met when applied to the four metareviews identified during the systematic search. This indicated a moderate level of reporting quality which should be improved in subsequent applications of the methodology by using the standardised checklist. A high level of inter-rater agreement was found (κ = 0.93). Conclusion. The standardised set of guidelines outlined in this report should assist future researchers in conducting more transparent and methodologically rigorous metareviews