Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42113125

A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.

Sydney Ingel·Evan M Lowder·Peyton Frye·Spencer G Lawson·Autumn Kent
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Pretrial risk assessments are becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Despite the importance of assessing and intervening around "needs" in the risk-need-responsivity model, few pretrial risk assessments include comprehensive assessment of needs. We aim to provide a systematic review of the prevalence of and predictive utility of needs within the pretrial population. HYPOTHESES: There were no hypotheses given the nature of the study. METHOD: We conducted searches for articles in the EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases using key words related to 11 needs domains: antisocial personality, procriminal attitudes, procriminal associates, substance use, family/marital relationships, school/work, prosocial recreational activities, self-esteem, housing, mental health, and physical health. We identified 215 articles that reported on the prevalence of needs or explored their predictive associations with pretrial misconduct outcomes in adult populations. RESULTS: Overall, we find few comprehensive investigations of needs in the pretrial domain, apart from substance use. Variation in methodology and operationalization contributes to wide variability in prevalence estimates. We found only 15 articles that examined predictive associations between pretrial needs and outcomes, which were limited to investigations of behavioral health, employment, and housing needs. Substance use and housing needs emerged as the only consistent predictors of pretrial misconduct. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should more directly assess the prevalence and predictive utility of needs within the pretrial period to bolster the evidence base for including these factors in pretrial risk assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Explore related subjects

HumansRisk AssessmentNeeds AssessmentUnited StatesAntisocial Personality DisorderJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sydney Ingel, Evan M Lowder, Peyton Frye, Spencer G Lawson, Autumn Kent. 2026-05-11. A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000666

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Systematic Review resourceHumans subjectJournal Article subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2025

Quantitative Outcomes for Shared Assessment and Management in Forensic Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Despite leading models of mental health care encouraging user involvement, users in forensic mental health (FMH) report poor involvement given the difficulty in reconciling shared approaches with risk-averse and legally mandated settings. While previous research has demonstrated qualitative benefits to shared approaches in FMH and has led to a proliferation of self-rated assessment tools, there remains to quantify agreement on self-rated tools and to clarify the impact of shared approaches on care. This meta-analysis examines (1) the correlation between clinician and user ratings, (2) the predictive validity of self-ratings for violence, and (3) the effects of shared risk management on violence and restriction in FMH. Five databases were searched from inception to April 2024, selecting for adult FMH inpatients, shared risk assessment, needs assessment or violence management as interventions, and quantitative outcomes (correlation, agreement, predictive validity, and effect on violence or restriction rates). Fifteen quantitative evaluations were retained. One of three planned meta-analyses could be conducted, with seven records providing paired clinician-user t-tests. Eleven more records provided clinical recommendations on operationalizing shared approaches. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant and large paired standard difference of .95 (95% CI = [.49,1.42]) across tools, with significant differences in DUNDRUM-3, DUNDRUM-4, and CANFOR sub-models. While acknowledging between-study heterogeneity, results substantiate quantitative differences where clinicians generally rate more needs and lesser progress than users across tools, showing that self-ratings can and should be used to broach collaborative discussions on needs and progress during FMH treatment. There remains an evidence gap for quantitative benefits in care outcomes and a need to standardize agreement measures for future comparisons and clinical sub-group analyses.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Chronic postsurgical pain: risk assessment and mitigation.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and persistent postoperative opioid use (PPOU) are two of the most common complications of a number of surgical interventions, which can cause significant personal and economic negative consequences. This review outlines known and potential risk factors for CPSP and PPOU and approaches to reduce these risk factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Modifiable risk factors for developing CPSP include psychological distress, preoperative pain intensity, and perioperative opioid exposure. Although less studied, psychological comorbidities are also risk factors for PPOU. Evidence-based mitigation strategies include psychological interventions and perioperative opioid sparing. SUMMARY: A number of perioperative risk factors for developing CPSP and PPOU have been identified, and anesthesiologists should be cognizant of these risk factors and potential risk mitigation strategies. Additional prospective studies are needed to further develop easily adoptable, evidence-based interventions to reduce the incidence of CPSP and PPOU.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Review of regulatory requirements for benefit-risk assessment for medical devices: uncovering existing methodologies.

INTRODUCTION: A positive benefit-risk profile is a prerequisite for the market approval of medical devices. However, regulations are often criticized for providing limited information on benefit-risk assessment (BRA) despite growing expectations for quantitative methods. A clearer understanding of regulatory requirements, existing methodologies, and unresolved issues is needed. AREAS COVERED: Relevant regulatory documents referencing BRA for medical devices were systematically identified, with a primary focus on the European regulation followed by screening to extract BRA‑related requirements and any explicitly or implicitly described methods. The findings were analyzed and consolidated by BRA context, type, objective, methodological description, and implementation, thereby establishing a basis for the BRA methodological landscape. EXPERT OPINION: BRA is not a single concept, but a set of context‑dependent assessments across lifecycle of a medical device. BRA within clinical evaluation framed into BRAs of risk management holds a pivotal role and is supported by the most detailed methodological guidance, although BRAs in other contexts are important. A structured overview of existing BRA requirements clarifies their treatment across regulatory documents. By differentiating BRA contexts, types, objectives, and required methodological detail, the analysis supports a more transparent understanding of BRA and helps identify priorities for methodological refinement and interface clarification.

Risk Assessment↗