"If It Hadn't Been Online I Don't Think I Would Have Applied": Applicant Experiences of an Online Family Violence Intervention Order Process.

Domestic violence protection orders are civil court orders intended to protect victim/survivors from further violence by prohibiting alleged perpetrators from engaging in threatened or actual violence or harassment of victim/survivors and their children. However, their availability and ultimately their effectiveness is limited by complex procedural requirements and court accessibility barriers that victim/survivors can find intimidating, confusing, and unsafe, and that contribute to delays between lodgment of an application and the making of an intervention order by the court. This study examined the experiences of applicants who used either a conventional court process or an online application process that was trialed in three courts in Victoria, Australia. We examined court data on 791 applicants who sought an intervention order at the three courts during the study period, and interviewed 28 applicants including 12 who had applied online. We also examined the impact of the online process on court workloads and risk assessments, and conducted interviews and focus groups with magistrates and registry staff at each of the three trial locations. Compared with the court registry process, the online application was rated as simpler and easier to understand and less stressful. Online applicants also reported that the application process was more accessible and enhanced their sense of agency. The online application process also reduced the workload of court staff and resulted in faster case processing, with online applicants reaching the court hearing stage nearly 2 weeks earlier than paper-based applicants. However, we did not find that the online application process provided earlier or better risk identification.

Emotional and social dysfunction in patients following surgical treatment for brain tumour.

Patients following brain surgery for tumour were assessed using the Emotional and Social Dysfunction questionnaire on a self-rating and partner version of the questionnaire. Analyses were performed on those patients who had self-ratings following surgery for astrocytoma (n=13), meningioma (n=26), neuroma (n=13) and pituitary adenoma (n=17). Patients with astrocytoma were rated highest when compared to the other tumour groups, although all groups of patients performed more poorly on some of the individual scales compared to a matched control group of extra-cerebral neurosurgery patients and terminally ill cancer patients. A malignant (n=48) and benign (n=33) classification similarly showed a higher partner and self-rating of malignant tumour patients. Both diagnosis and location of lesion determined outcome independently. Some differences in profile and severity between patient self-ratings and partner ratings indicate the need to survey both perspectives. This study shows a broader based emotional dysfunction in these patients which includes such prominent features such as anger, helplessness, fatigue, emotional dyscontrol, indifference, and maladaptive behaviour. These results are discussed in terms of follow-up therapeutic care and the need to further explore the relationship between lesion location and emotional profile.

The ESDQ: a new method of assessing emotional and social dysfunction in patients following brain surgery.

The Emotional and Social Dysfunction Questionnaire (ESDQ) has been designed to overcome some of the difficulties of inappropriately applying psychiatric based questionnaires to brain-damaged populations. Two-hundred and twenty-five patients were assessed following brain surgery (BS) using a self-rating patient version of the ESDQ and 211 of these patients were rated by their partner. A factor analysis using a varimax rotation and principal components analysis found the partner results to show eight factors including, Anger, Helplessness, Emotional Dyscontrol, Indifference, Inappropriateness, Fatigue, Maladaptive behaviour, and Insight. The analysis of the Self-rating questions revealed a similar profile, Anger, Emotional Dyscontrol, Helplessness, Inertia, Fatigue, Indifference, Inappropriate, and Euphoria. The scales based on the factors were subjected to discriminant analysis in which the BS patients were compared with a combination control group of neurosurgical outpatients and terminally-ill cancer patients, all of which were without cerebral complaints. The brain surgery results for the partner-rated and the Self-rated version of the ESDQ were compared with control ratings of 42 partners and 54 self-ratings, respectively. The analysis showed a significant discrimination for the Partner-rated version on each of the eight scales individually with an overall significant overall separation (Wilks Lambda=.903, chi=21.1, df=8, p=<.005). The Self-rated version showed less separation on an individual scale basis the Emotional Dyscontrol scale failing to show a significant separation. The overall difference on the Self-rating version was significant [Wilks Lambda=.908, chi=26.2, df=8, p=<.001). The levels of internal consistency of the questionnaire scales were found to be satisfactory (Alpha,.78 -.94). Also the relationship between ESDQ scales and standardised measures of aggression, anxiety, depression, and vigour (STAXI, HADS, and POMS) gave an indication of acceptable levels of concurrent validity.