8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing violence risk in first-episode psychosis: external validation, updating and net benefit of a prediction tool (OxMIV)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Violence perpetration is a key outcome to prevent for an important subgroup of individuals presenting to mental health services, including early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services. Needs and risks are typically assessed without structured methods, which could facilitate consistency and accuracy. Prediction tools, such as OxMIV (Oxford Mental Illness and Violence tool), could provide a structured risk stratification approach, but require external validation in clinical settings.

          Objectives

          We aimed to validate and update OxMIV in first-episode psychosis and consider its benefit as a complement to clinical assessment.

          Methods

          A retrospective cohort of individuals assessed in two UK EIP services was included. Electronic health records were used to extract predictors and risk judgements made by assessing clinicians. Outcome data involved police and healthcare records for violence perpetration in the 12 months post-assessment.

          Findings

          Of 1145 individuals presenting to EIP services, 131 (11%) perpetrated violence during the 12 month follow-up. OxMIV showed good discrimination (area under the curve 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80). Calibration-in-the-large was also good after updating the model constant. Using a 10% cut-off, sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 63% to 80%), specificity 66% (63% to 69%), positive predictive value 22% (19% to 24%) and negative predictive value 95% (93% to 96%). In contrast, clinical judgement sensitivity was 40% and specificity 89%. Decision curve analysis showed net benefit of OxMIV over comparison approaches.

          Conclusions

          OxMIV performed well in this real-world validation, with improved sensitivity compared with unstructured assessments.

          Clinical implications

          Structured tools to assess violence risk, such as OxMIV, have potential in first-episode psychosis to support a stratified approach to allocating non-harmful interventions to individuals who may benefit from the largest absolute risk reduction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations inR

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study.

            Separate multivariable risk algorithms are commonly used to assess risk of specific atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, ie, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure. The present report presents a single multivariable risk function that predicts risk of developing all CVD and of its constituents. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression to evaluate the risk of developing a first CVD event in 8491 Framingham study participants (mean age, 49 years; 4522 women) who attended a routine examination between 30 and 74 years of age and were free of CVD. Sex-specific multivariable risk functions ("general CVD" algorithms) were derived that incorporated age, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, treatment for hypertension, smoking, and diabetes status. We assessed the performance of the general CVD algorithms for predicting individual CVD events (coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, or heart failure). Over 12 years of follow-up, 1174 participants (456 women) developed a first CVD event. All traditional risk factors evaluated predicted CVD risk (multivariable-adjusted P<0.0001). The general CVD algorithm demonstrated good discrimination (C statistic, 0.763 [men] and 0.793 [women]) and calibration. Simple adjustments to the general CVD risk algorithms allowed estimation of the risks of each CVD component. Two simple risk scores are presented, 1 based on all traditional risk factors and the other based on non-laboratory-based predictors. A sex-specific multivariable risk factor algorithm can be conveniently used to assess general CVD risk and risk of individual CVD events (coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial disease and heart failure). The estimated absolute CVD event rates can be used to quantify risk and to guide preventive care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement

              Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org). Editors’ note: In order to encourage dissemination of the TRIPOD Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in BJOG, British Journal of Cancer, British Journal of Surgery, BMC Medicine, British Medical Journal, Circulation, Diabetic Medicine, European Journal of Clinical Investigation, European Urology, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration article is freely available only on www.annals.org; Annals of Internal Medicine holds copyright for that article.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Ment Health
                BMJ Ment Health
                ebmental
                ebmh
                BMJ Mental Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2755-9734
                2023
                14 June 2023
                : 26
                : 1
                : e300634
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentInstitute of Mental Health , University of Nottingham , Nottingham, UK
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Psychiatry , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ]departmentCentre for Medical Imaging , University College London , London, UK
                [4 ]Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Daniel Whiting, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK; daniel.whiting@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-364X
                Article
                bmjment-2022-300634
                10.1136/bmjment-2022-300634
                10335427
                37316256
                1ffd2290-7988-4e5d-b6c5-2807440a7c48
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 25 November 2022
                : 29 December 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre;
                Award ID: N/a
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: DRF-2018-11-ST2-069
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome;
                Award ID: 202836/Z/16/Z
                Funded by: NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre;
                Award ID: BRC-1215-20005
                Categories
                Adult Mental Health
                1506
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                adult psychiatry,forensic psychiatry,schizophrenia & psychotic disorders

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content146

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors1,272