Search

Background: Patients with an intellectual disability (ID) and offending histories constitute a challenging clinical group. The present study examined commonalities and differences in demographic, diagnostic and offence characteristics in patients with and without intellectual disabilities who were either convicted for violent or sexual offences and who resided in mandated care in the Netherlands.Method: We compared 165 offenders with an ID to 249 offenders without an ID. We compared both groups by type of offence (i.e., sexual versus violent offence) using Mann-Whitney U-test or independent samples t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-square tests for categorical variables.Results: In general, forensic patients with an ID were younger at admission (U=357, z = -12.668, p < .001), had more prior convictions for violent offences (χ2(1)= 6.175, p = .013) and more prevalent diagnoses of substance abuse disorders (χ2(1)= 9.266, p = .002) than those without an ID. Similar results were found for patients with IDs with sexual offence histories.Conclusion: A clear understanding of distinct characteristics of forensic patients with intellectual disabilities is crucial in understanding (sexual) violent behavior in this population as it mayassistclinicians in prioritizing interventionstrategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: There is a lack of detailed information on the role of substance use disorders (SUD) as a substantial factor in offences and treatment in forensic psychiatric patients. The aim of this study was to get a better understanding of these specifics. Clinical records of 193 male patients admitted to a Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital were scrutinized on anamnestic, diagnostic and risk assessment data. One of the central findings was that the prevalence of SUDs was high. Patients with an SUD had a more extensive criminal history, unstable and deviant lifestyle and higher risk of violent behavior than patients without a substance use disorder. No differences were found in duration of treatment, aggressive incidents and leave. Another important finding was that a distinction could be made between patients with substance use as a primary criminogenic risk factor and patients with substance use as a secondary risk factor. Although substance use is identified as a general risk factor, this study supports the idea of sub categorization of patients with an SUD and emphasizes the need for a different treatment approach. Further study is needed to identify specific treatment approaches, based on more differentiated profiles of these patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]