Background: Treatment of offenders in forensic mental health is complex. Often, these in- or outpatients have low treatment motivation, suffer from multiple disorders, and have poor literacy skills. eHealth may be able to improve treatment outcomes because of its potential to increase motivation and engagement, and it can overcome the predominant one-size-fits-all approach by being tailored to individual patients. Objective: To examine its potential, this systematic review studies the way that eHealth has been used and studied in forensic mental health and identifies accompanying advantages and disadvantages for both patients and treatment, including effectiveness. Methods: A systematic search in Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed up until December 2017. Studies were included if they focused on technological interventions to improve the treatment of forensic psychiatric patients. Results: The search resulted in 50 studies in which eHealth was used for treatment purposes. Multiple types of studies and technologies were identified, such as virtual reality, web-based interventions, and videoconferencing. The results confirmed the benefits of technology, for example, the acquisition of unique information about offenders, effectiveness, and tailoring to specific characteristics, but indicated that these are not fully taken advantage of. Discussion: To overcome the barriers and obtain the benefits, eHealth has to have a good fit with patients and the forensic psychiatric context. It has to be seamlessly integrated in existing care and should not be added as an isolated element. To bridge the gap between the current situation and eHealth’s potential, further research on development, implementation, and evaluation should be conducted.

A substantial group of forensic psychiatric patients require (life)long forensic psychiatric care. Instead of aiming at re-entry into society, treatment in long-term forensic psychiatric care (LFPC) is principally aimed at medical and psychiatric care and optimising quality of life (QoL). To assess QoL in LFPC, the influence of both the mental disorder and the restrictive context should be considered. Therefore, a new instrument was developed: the Forensic inpatient QoL questionnaire (FQL). The FQL is based on the results of concept-mapping with patients and staff within LFPC. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the FQL. One hundred and sixty-three FQLs, filled out by 98 male long-term forensic psychiatric patients, were included for testing reliability and content validity. For testing construct validity, 53 patients additionally completed the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-Brief version and 50 of them the Affect Balance Scale. Outcomes indicate that the FQL has good psychometric properties. Fifteen of the 16 FQL domains showed adequate to good reliability (Cronbach's α range .69–.91) and 9 domains met the criteria for homogeneity. Content validity was demonstrated by exploratory factor analysis, which revealed a three-factor structure: social well-being, physical well-being and leave. Construct validity was supported by 59% correctly hypothesised inter- and intrascale Pearson's correlation coefficients. Good psychometric properties and its clinical-based development make the FQL a valid and useful instrument for QoL assessment in LFPC. The FQL could therefore contribute to evidence-based and more advanced treatment programmes in LFPC.

Background: While eMental health interventions can have many potential benefits for mental health care, implementation outcomes are often disappointing. In order to improve these outcomes, there is a need for a better understanding of complex, dynamic interactions between a broad range of implementation-related factors. These interactions and processes should be studied holistically, paying attention to factors related to context, technology, and people. Objective: The main objective of this mixed-method study was to holistically evaluate the implementation strategies and outcomes of an eMental health intervention in an organization for forensic mental health care. Methods: First, desk research was performed on 18 documents on the implementation process. Second, the intervention’s use by 721 patients and 172 therapists was analyzed via log data. Third, semistructured interviews were conducted with all 18 therapists of one outpatient clinic to identify broad factors that influence implementation outcomes. The interviews were analyzed via a combination of deductive analysis using the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework and inductive, open coding. Results: The timeline generated via desk research showed that implementation strategies focused on technical skills training of therapists. Log data analyses demonstrated that 1019 modules were started, and 18.65% (721/3865) of patients of the forensic hospital started at least one module. Of these patients, 18.0% (130/721) completed at least one module. Of the therapists using the module, 54.1% (93/172 sent at least one feedback message to a patient. The median number of feedback messages sent per therapist was 1, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 460. Interviews showed that therapists did not always introduce the intervention to patients and using the intervention was not part of their daily routine. Also, therapists indicated patients often did not have the required conscientiousness and literacy levels. Furthermore, they had mixed opinions about the design of the intervention. Important organization-related factors were the need for more support and better integration in organizational structures. Finally, therapists stated that despite its current low use, the intervention had the potential to improve the quality of treatment. Conclusions: Synthesis of different types of data showed that implementation outcomes were mostly disappointing. Implementation strategies focused on technical training of therapists, while little attention was paid to changes in the organization, design of the technology, and patient awareness. A more holistic approach toward implementation strategies—with more attention to the organization, patients, technology, and training therapists—might have resulted in better implementation outcomes. Overall, adaptivity appears to be an important concept in eHealth implementation: a technology should be easily adaptable to an individual patient, therapists should be trained to deal flexibly with an eMental health intervention in their treatment, and organizations should adapt their implementation strategies and structures to embed a new eHealth intervention.

Background: The use of electronic health (eHealth) technologies in practice often is lower than expected, mostly because there is no optimal fit among a technology, the characteristics of prospective users, and their context. To improve this fit, a thorough systematic development process is recommended. However, more knowledge about suitable development methods is necessary to create a tool kit that guides researchers in choosing development methods that are appropriate for their context and users. In addition, there is a need for reflection on the existing frameworks for eHealth development to be able to constantly improve them.Objective: The two main objectives of this case study were to present and reflect on the (1) methods used in the development process of a virtual reality application for forensic mental health care and (2) development model that was used: the CeHRes Roadmap (the Centre for eHealth Research Roadmap).Methods: In the development process, multiple methods were used to operationalize the first 2 phases of the CeHRes Roadmap: the contextual inquiry and value specification. To summarize the most relevant information for the goals of this study, the following information was extracted per method: (1) research goal, (2) explanation of the method used, (3) main results, (4) main conclusions, and (5) lessons learned about the method.Results: Information on 10 methods used is presented in a structured manner. These 10 methods were stakeholder identification, project team composition, focus groups, literature study, semistructured interviews, idea generation with scenarios, Web-based questionnaire, value specification, idea generation with prototyping, and a second round of interviews. The lessons learned showed that although each method added new insights to the development process, not every method appeared to be the most appropriate for each research goal.Conclusions: Reflection on the methods used pointed out that brief methods with concrete examples or scenarios fit the forensic psychiatric patients the best, among other things, because of difficulties with abstract reasoning and low motivation to invest much time in participating in research. Formulating clear research questions based on a model’s underlying principles and composing a multidisciplinary project team with prospective end users appeared to be important in this study. The research questions supported the project team in keeping the complex development processes structured and prevented tunnel vision. With regard to the CeHRes Roadmap, continuous stakeholder involvement and formative evaluations were evaluated as strong points. A suggestion to further improve the Roadmap is to explicitly integrate the use of domain-specific theories and models. To create a tool kit with a broad range of methods for eHealth development and further improve development models, studies that report and reflect on development processes in a consistent and structured manner are needed.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be accompanied by aggressive behavior and is associated with sensory processing difficulties. The present study aims to investigate the direct association between sensory processing and aggressive behavior in adults with ASD. A total of 101 Dutch adult participants with ASD, treated in outpatient or inpatient facilities, completed the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP), the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), and the Aggression Questionnaire—Short Form (AQ-SF). Results revealed that sensory processing difficulties are associated with more aggressive behavior ($f^2=0.25$), more proactive ($f^2=0.19$) and reactive aggression ($f^2=0.27$), more physical ($f^2=0.08$) and verbal aggression ($f^2=0.13$), and more anger ($f^2=0.20$) and hostility ($f^2=0.12$). Evidence was found for an interaction of the neurological threshold and behavioral response on total aggression and hostility. Participants with higher scores in comparison to the norm group in sensory sensitivity had the highest risk of aggressive behavior. In conclusion, clinical practice may benefit from applying detailed diagnostics on sensory processing difficulties when treating aggressive behavior in adults with ASD.