Guidelines for Abstract Submission

Rules & Guidelines for Submission of Abstracts

Abstracts must be submitted electronically via the IAFMHS website. Please read the rules of submission before submitting your abstract.

All abstracts must be submitted and presented in clear English with accurate grammar and spelling suitable for publication. If you need help, please arrange for the review of your abstract by a colleague who is a native English speaker prior to submission.

Please note that all abstracts accepted for presentation will be published on the website prior to the conference.

The Committee will review abstracts. Following this, information regarding acceptance, and scheduling will be sent to the main author/presenter. Please ensure you have provided your correct email address and are able to receive emails from IAFMHS.

Instructions for preparation of posters and oral presentations will be posted to the IAFMHS website once notifications are emailed.

Only abstracts of authors who have paid their registration fees will be scheduled and included in the final program. Presenter registration deadline is February 10, 2012.

Posters will be viewed during dedicated poster time in the program.

Deadline for submissions: November 10, 2011

Prepare the abstract for blind review.

The following information is required for all submissions

Presenting author's contact details

• Full last and first name
• Affiliation details
• Discipline
• Email address
• Daytime phone number including country code

Additional Authors/Presenters (please note co-authors will be listed after the presenting author in the order as submitted)

• First and last Name
• Affiliation

• Format (poster, paper or symposium) - Please note that consideration will be given to your preferred presentation type, however the final allocation will be determined by the reviewing committee
• Proposal Themes
• Abstract title – Maximum 20 words (no special formatting)
• Learning Objectives: Identify 2-3 learning objectives in point form, maximum 60 words
• Abstract text – Maximum 250 words (paper, poster) 750 (symposium) 

SUBMISSION EXAMPLES

Aim: The aim of this review is to identify training related issues in the area of forensic psychiatric training requested by prosecutors. Through this we want to gain more insight into the prosecutor’s perceptions and specific needs to be able to make the necessary presentation adjustments to improve outcomes.
Method: We reviewed the programs and presentations used during the 5 years that the prosecutorial workshops have requested psychiatric inputs. We evaluated written feedback given by prosecutors after each workshop as well as verbal feedback during the workshop. Topics that were mostly requested, recurrent themes and responses to changes in the program were noted.
Outcomes: We were able to identify certain topics that seemed to be problematic areas in the training sessions. In the feedback there were differences in the requested and problematic topics between the different workshop groups as well as between different prosecutors attending the same workshop. A few themes, however repeatedly stood out as areas that need more attention. Interactive workshops with case presentations, discussion groups and audience participation seemed to be the preferred method of training. Visits to a psychiatric facility, with specific focus on improvement of liaison between the disciplines through exposure to the practical aspects and conditions were well received.
Conclusion: With the training of prosecutors on psychiatric topics, certain concepts seem to be more problematic than others and require different training methods. Interactive approaches like case studies, group discussions, audience participation and hospital visits are generally perceived as being the most effective training methods.  

Symposium
Title: Clarifying the Principles of the Structured Professional Judgment Approach to Violence Risk Assessment: Current Status and Next Steps
Main Author/Chair: Kevin Douglas LL.B., PhD, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University
Secondary Author(s):
Stephen Hart, Ph.D., Simon Fraser University
Laura Guy, MA, Simon Fraser University
Christopher D. Webster, Simon Fraser University
Joel Dvoskin, Ph.D., University of Arizona
Format: Symposium
Learning Objectives:
1. Participants will learn about the core principles of the structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment
2. Participants will learn about the proposed revisions to the HCR-20
3. Participants will learn about a meta-analytic comparison between different types of risk assessment instruments
 

The structured professional judgment approach (SPJ) to violence risk assessment has emerged as a viable approach to promote reliable and valid decisions about risk for future violence. However, the authors of the symposium have noticed some mischaracterizations of the SPJ approach in the literature (i.e., that it combines clinical and actuarial approaches). The purposes of this symposium are (a) to clearly describe the principles of the SPJ approach, (b) to describe research that has evaluated these principles, and (c) to describe how the revision process for Version 3 of the HCR-20 reflects these principles and past research.
 

Paper 1 will outline and describe the core principles of the SPJ approach, and how it is similar to and different than both unstructured and actuarial approaches to risk assessment. In particular, he will (a) describe how, exactly, SPJ “structures” decision-making, (b) the role of “individual relevance” of risk factors in risk formulation, (c) the meaning of final SPJ judgments of “low,” “moderate”, and “high” risk; (d) the logical link between these risk judgments and the intensity and nature of risk management plans; (e) the validity of these judgments across over a dozen research samples; (f) why these judgments tend to equal or surpass the predictive validity of the numeric use of SPJ instruments; and (g) future evaluative research necessary on the SPJ model.
 

In Paper 2, a detailed empirical analysis of SPJ versus actuarial approaches to risk assessment will be presented. The relative utility of SPJ ratings will be examined empirically in three ways. First, using meta-analytic techniques, findings from studies in which direct comparisons were made between predictions based on SPJ and actuarial measures will be presented. This will include comparative analyses focused specifically on the HCR-20 and actuarial instruments (200+ studies). Second, the degree of validity shrinkage observed between calibration and cross-validation of actuarial risk assessment tools will be meta-analyzed. Finally, using a large sample (N = 1000+) of offenders, civil psychiatric, and forensic psychiatric patients from North America and Europe, actuarial formulae for the HCR-20 will be derived and cross-validated; comparisons between the validity estimates based on the cross-validated actuarial predictions and SPJ final judgments for violent outcomes will be presented, in order to test the relative predictive utility of SPJ vs cross-validated actuarial predictive methods.
 

Paper 3, will describe how the revision process of the HCR-20 is reflective of both the principles and past research covered in the first two talks. This will include (a) a summary of perceived limits of the current version of the HCR-20, (b) our primary goals in revising the HCR-20, (c) additional evaluative research on the HCR-20 (i.e., factor analytic) that has influenced the revision process; and (d) novel SPJ features that are being tested in the development of Version 3 of the HCR-20.
 

Poster
Title: Characteristics of Female Patients Admitted to Medium Secure Setting: An Eight Year Study in Scotland’s First Medium Secure Unit
Main Author: Vennela Kalluru MRCPsych, Speciality Registrar 4 in Forensic Psychiatry, Ailsa Hospital, NHS Ayrshire and Arran
Secondary Author(s):
Pradeep Pasupuleti, MRCPsych; Speciality Registrar 4 in Forensic Psychiatry, The State Hospital, Carstairs.
Amul Patel, MRCPsych; Speciality Registrar 4 in General Adult Psychiatry, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh.
Karthik Bommu, DPM; Speciality Trainee 2 in Psychiatry, Stratheden Hospital, Cupar.
Andrew Wells, MRCPsych, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Orchard Clinic, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh.
Format: Poster
 

Learning Objectives:
•To study the demographic, psychiatric and criminogenic characteristics of female patients admitted to medium security.
•To identify any change in admission trends over the last 8 years.
•The above information could aid the needs assessment and service evaluation exercises used for the development of the

Forensic Psychiatric Services for Women in Scotland.
Studies done before have systematically described models for the delivery of secure psychiatric services to women in the UK and abroad. These women have complex needs due to a combination of mental illness, history of sexual abuse and adverse social circumstances.

It appears that in Scotland there is currently no requirement for high secure female psychiatric beds as this group is now being appropriately managed in less secure settings.

This retrospective and descriptive study aims to describe the demographic, psychiatric and criminogenic characteristics of all the female patients admitted to the Orchard Clinic, Scotland’s first medium secure unit, over an 8 year period, between January 2001 and January 2009. We also aim to identify any change in admission trends as the State Hospital, Scotland’s only high secure unit, had closed admissions to female patients and a new regional medium secure unit was inaugurated during this period.
 

Data is being recorded on a structured data collection form after visual inspection of the psychiatric case notes. So far, there have been 39 female admissions into the unit of which 2 are readmissions. 82% of these admissions were successfully transferred to conditions of lesser security or discharged into the community. The mean age of this patient group is 42.3 years (range: 23.11 -56.9). The mean duration of stay is 579 days (range: 7 - 2670). Currently there are 7 female patients distributed between 1 acute and 2 long stay wards.

PLEASE BE ADVISED YOU MUST CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT TO SUBMIT AN ABSTRACT