OBJECTIVE: To develop an international consensus statement to advise on designing, delivering and evaluating sport-based interventions (SBIs) aimed at promoting social, psychological and physical well-being in prison.
METHODS: Modified Delphi using two rounds of survey questionnaires and two consensus workshops.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of more than 40 experts from 15 international jurisdictions was formed, including representation from the following groups and stakeholders: professionals working in the justice system; officials from sport federations and organisations; academics with research experience of prisons, secure forensic mental health settings and SBIs; and policy-makers in criminal justice and sport.
RESULTS: A core research team and advisory board developed the initial rationale, statement and survey. This survey produced qualitative data which was analysed thematically. The findings were presented at an in-person workshop. Panellists discussed the findings, and, using a modified nominal group technique, reached a consensus on objectives to be included in a revised statement. The core research team and advisory board revised the statement and recirculated it with a second survey. Findings from the second survey were discussed at a second, virtual, workshop. The core research team and advisory board further revised the consensus statement and recirculated it asking panellists for further comments. This iterative process resulted in seven final statement items; all participants have confirmed that they agreed with the content, objectives and recommendations of the final statement.
CONCLUSIONS: The statement can be used to assist those that design, deliver and evaluate SBIs by providing guidance on: (1) minimum levels of competence for those designing and delivering SBIs; (2) the design and delivery of inclusive programmes prioritising disadvantaged groups; and (3) evaluation measures which are carefully calibrated both to capture proposed programme outcomes and to advance an understanding of the systems, processes and experiences of sport engagement in prison.

When it comes to questions of fact in a legal context-particularly questions about measurement, association, and causality-courts should employ ordinary standards of applied science. Applied sciences generally develop along a path that proceeds from a basic scientific discovery about some natural process to the formation of a theory of how the process works and what causes it to fail, to the development of an invention intended to assess, repair, or improve the process, to the specification of predictions of the instrument\'s actions and, finally, empirical validation to determine that the instrument achieves the intended effect. These elements are salient and deeply embedded in the cultures of the applied sciences of medicine and engineering, both of which primarily grew from basic sciences. However, the inventions that underlie most forensic science disciplines have few roots in basic science, and they do not have sound theories to justify their predicted actions or results of empirical tests to prove that they work as advertised. Inspired by the \"Bradford Hill Guidelines\"-the dominant framework for causal inference in epidemiology-we set forth four guidelines that can be used to establish the validity of forensic comparison methods generally. This framework is not intended as a checklist establishing a threshold of minimum validity, as no magic formula determines when particular disciplines or hypotheses have passed a necessary threshold. We illustrate how these guidelines can be applied by considering the discipline of firearm and tool mark examination.

BACKGROUND: Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a term used in law enforcement and healthcare, but there is a lack of clarity regarding its meaning. Common language should be used across staff groups to support the identification, prioritisation and delivery of care to this group of patients. The terminology currently used is inconsistent and confusing. This study aimed to reach a consensus on the criteria for identification and management of ABD, and to agree when other care pathways or guidelines might be more appropriately used.
METHODS: A modified Delphi study with participation from stakeholder organisation representatives was conducted in January-April 2023 online. In round 1, statements were generated by participants in response to broad questions. Participants then rated their level of agreement with statements in subsequent rounds, with statements achieving a consensus removed for inclusion in the final derived consensus statement. Non-consensus statement responses were assessed for stability.
RESULTS: Of 430 unique statements presented for rating, 266 achieved a consensus among 30 participants representing eight stakeholder organisations. A derived consensus statement was generated from these statements. The median group response to statements which failed to achieve a consensus was reliable (Krippendorff\'s alpha=0·67).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a consensus across stakeholder organisations that ABD is not a separate entity to agitation, and guidance should instead be altered to address the full range of presentations of agitation. While the features of concern in this severely agitated group of patients can be described, the advice for recognition may vary depending on staff group. Criteria for recognition are provided and potential new terminology is described.

Negative attitudes towards individuals with a mental illness and/or criminal background are widely studied, but empirical interest in the attitudes towards patients with a forensic mental health status is lacking. Negative attitudes among mental healthcare (MHC) professionals can have a significant impact on treatment outcomes and hence, affect patients\' rehabilitation. This study will elaborate an instrument to assess stigmatising attitudes among community MHC professionals towards patients with a forensic mental health status.
The instrument will be developed by means of a Delphi study and depart from pre-existing instruments that assess public and professional stigma towards individuals with a mental illness and/or criminal background. Relevant instruments were identified through a targeted literature review. A longlist of items has been selected for the Delphi survey. Five expert panels (ie, academic experience in stigma or forensic MHC, clinical experience in community or forensic MHC or patient experience in forensic and community MHC) will be asked to score the relevance of each item on a 7-point Likert scale and to agree on the wording (yes/no). Participants will be provided with the option to suggest additional items or alternative wording. Adapted Delphi methodology will be applied with an expectation of at least three rounds to achieve consensus: ≥60% of the participants of at least four of five expert panels rank the item in the top three (inclusion) or bottom three (exclusion). Items will be reworded for a consecutive round based on a \'yes minus no\' score and participants\' suggestions.
This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Fundación Sant Joan de Déu. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and (inter-)national academic conferences. A summary of the results will be shared with the participants and key persons in community and forensic MHC.

This manuscript aims to: 1) provide specific guidelines on PMM techniques in the setting of minimally invasive autopsy (MIA), both for pathologists collecting samples and for microbiologists advising pathologists and interpreting the results and 2) introduce standardization in PMM sampling at MIA. Post-mortem microbiology (PMM) is crucial to identify the causative organism in deaths due to infection. MIA including the use of post-mortem (PM) computed tomography (CT) and PM magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is increasingly carried out as a complement or replacement for the traditional PM. In this setting, mirroring the traditional autopsy, PMM aims to: detect infectious organisms causing sudden unexpected deaths; confirm clinically suspected but unproven infection; evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy; identify emergent pathogens; and recognize medical diagnostic errors. Meaningful interpretation of PMM results requires careful evaluation in the context of the clinical history, macroscopic and microscopic findings. These guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary team with experts in various fields of microbiology and pathology on behalf of the ESGFOR (ESCMID - European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases - Study Group of Forensic and Post-mortem Microbiology, in collaboration with the ESP -European Society of Pathology-) based on a literature search and the author\'s expertise. Microbiological sampling methods for MIA are presented for various scenarios: adults, children, developed and developing countries. Concordance between MIA and conventional invasive autopsy is substantial for children and adults and moderate for neonates and maternal deaths. Networking and closer collaboration among microbiologists and pathologists is vital to maximize the yield of PMM in MIA.

This paper provides guidance on how to properly analyse data generated from the Home Office fingermark grading scheme. The core of the issue is that it creates ordinal data and should therefore not be analysed using averages. To reduce confusion, it is recommended to label the different degrees of fingermark development as classes rather than numerical scores. Appropriate statistical tests are provided to properly analyse Home Office fingermark grading scheme data, however, not using statistical tests is perfectly acceptable so long as conclusions are worded appropriately and do not exaggerate the significance of the findings. Some guidance is provided on estimating sample size and optimal methods for presenting results.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has contributed to an increase in intimate partner violence (IPV), posing challenges to health care providers who must protect themselves and others during sexual assault examinations. Victims of sexual assault encountered in prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings have legal as well as medical needs. A series of procedures must be carefully followed to facilitate forensic evidence collection and law enforcement investigation. A literature review detected a paucity of published guidance on the management of sexual assault patients in the ED, and no information specific to COVID-19.
Investigators sought to update the San Diego County sexual assault guidelines, created in collaboration with health care professionals, forensic specialists, and law enforcement, through a consensus iterative review process. An additional objective was to create a SAFET-I Tool for use by frontline providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors present a novel SAFET-I Tool that outlines the following five components of effective sexual assault patient care: stabilization, alert system activation, forensic evidence consideration, expedited post-assault treatment, and trauma-informed care. This framework can be used as an educational tool and template for agencies interested in developing or adapting existing sexual assault policies.
There is a lack of clinical guidance for ED providers that integrates the many aspects of sexual assault patient care, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. A SAFET-I Tool is presented to assist emergency health care providers in the treatment and advocacy of sexual assault patients during a period with increasing rates of IPV.

With the rapidly spreading coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic over the past few months, the world is facing an unprecedented crisis. Innumerable lives have been lost to this novel infectious disease, the nature of which supersedes conventional medical understanding. The COVID-19 pandemic is not just a global health crisis, several aspects of life in the post-COVID-19 era are also being contemplated. Experts in unison are warning that the upcoming changes in all areas of life could potentially be far more drastic than ever experienced in the entire human civilization. The medical community is no exception, and therefore, personnel involved in forensic medicine also need to be adequately prepared for the future. Forensic medicine is a branch of medicine dedicated to one of the most important stages of the human lifecycle and has always been at the forefront in times of unprecedented social change. The autopsy, one of the most important tools of forensic medicine, is also useful to infectious diseases because it identifies the causal relationship between death and infection, reveals medical and epidemiological knowledge, and provides objective evidence for legal disputes. We present new autopsy guidelines in forensic medicine, formulated based on the various infectious diseases that we presently live with and may encounter in the future. In formulation of these guidelines several considerations have been taken into account, namely, the role forensic pathologists should play in the post-COVID-19 era and the necessary preparations as well as the support needed from society to fulfill that role. The present COVID-19 outbreak should be a starting point for formulating improvements in current practices in forensic science, including autopsy biosafety practices and the medicolegal death investigation system.

Gender-based violence affects one third of women globally with death the ultimate consequence after repeated violence. Government intervention is imperative. This article focuses on recent Italian legislation that provides a framework to assist victims of violence in Italian Emergency Rooms.

Ageing of the global population represents a challenge for national healthcare systems and healthcare professionals, including medico-legal experts, who assess personal damage in an increasing number of older people. Personal damage evaluation in older people is complex, and the scarcity of evidence is hindering the development of formal guidelines on the subject. The main objectives of the first multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Medico-Legal Assessment of Personal Damage in Older People were to increase knowledge on the subject and establish standard procedures in this field. The conference, organized according to the guidelines issued by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), was held in Bologna (Italy) on June 8, 2019 with the support of national scientific societies, professional organizations, and stakeholders. The Scientific Technical Committee prepared 16 questions on 4 thematic areas: (1) differences in injury outcomes in older people compared to younger people and their relevance in personal damage assessment; (2) pre-existing status reconstruction and evaluation; (3) medico-legal examination procedures; (4) multidimensional assessment and scales. The Scientific Secretariat reviewed relevant literature and documents, rated their quality, and summarized evidence. During conference plenary public sessions, 4 pairs of experts reported on each thematic area. After the last session, a multidisciplinary Jury Panel (15 members) drafted the consensus statements. The present report describes Conference methods and results, including a summary of evidence supporting each statement, and areas requiring further investigation. The methodological recommendations issued during the Conference may be useful in several contexts of damage assessment, or to other medico-legal evaluation fields.