Search

Given the increasing literature on forensic assertive community treatment (FACT), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of FACT among justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were included in the meta-analyses for a total of 1,246 participants. Mixed results regarding health-related outcomes were found. The pre-post FACT analysis and comparison with control groups did not yield significant results other than increased outpatient service use. Results on forensic outcomes were more compelling. Both the narrative review and the meta-analysis highlighted that FACT programs may improve justice outcomes such as the number of days spent in jail. More high quality and multisite randomized controlled trials are needed to consolidate findings. Further research is needed to examine other psychosocial factors related to FACT program success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recidivism among released inmates is associated with a substantial societal burden given the financial and medical consequences of victimization. Among incarcerated North Americans, approximately 7% are housed in solitary confinement (SC). Studies show SC can lead to psychological deterioration and dispute it can effectively reduce institutional misconduct or recidivism. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the impact of SC on postrelease recidivism, which we hypothesized would increase following SC. A meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases from inception until December 2019. Studies on adult inmates in correctional settings were included if they met an operational definition of SC, measured recidivism, and included a comparison group in general inmate population. Random-effect models were used to assess the impact of SC on multiple types of recidivism. Of the 2,713 identified records, 12 met inclusion criteria (n = 194,078). A moderate association was found between SC and any recidivism (odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [1.41, 1.97]), which persisted in controlled studies (OR = 1.41). This association was replicated across types of recidivism comprising violence (OR = 1.41), rearrests (OR = 1.37), and reincarceration (OR = 1.67). Moreover, a more recent exposure to SC increased recidivism risk (OR = 2.02), and a dose–response relationship was found between days in SC and recidivism. The overall database presented high heterogeneity but no publication bias. Findings show a small to moderate association between SC and future crime/violence. Considering the societal costs associated with antisocial behaviors following SC, mental health and psychosocial programming facilitating inmates' successful reentry into society should be implemented and rigorously evaluated in strong research design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In reaction to weaknesses in feasibility studies reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement published an extension for feasibility studies in 2016. Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the reporting of feasibility studies in the nursing intervention research literature based on the CONSORT statement extension for feasibility studies. Method: Papers published prior to January 2018 that described feasibility studies of nursing interventions were retrieved. Components of feasibility studies were coded, and code frequencies were analysed. Results: The review included 186 papers. Although most papers (n = 142, 76.3%) included the label 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in their title, reporting for other components generally did not adhere to one or several CONSORT recommendations. Most papers reported objectives (n = 116, 62.4%), designs (n = 95, 51%), or rationales for sample size (n = 165, 88.7%) that were incongruent with the purpose of feasibility studies. Discussion: This review results in two main implications for nursing research. First, we noted that the reporting of feasibility studies is weak. While all papers described feasibility studies, almost half focused exclusively on testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Second, we identified rationales for sample size along with key references that could offer guidance in reporting feasibility studies while being coherent with the CONSORT recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Housing First is increasingly put forward as an important component of a pragmatic plan to end homelessness. The literature evaluating the impact of Housing First on criminal justice involvement has not yet been systematically examined. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of Housing First on criminal justice outcomes among homeless people with mental illness.Method: Five electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science) were searched up until July 2018 for randomised and nonrandomised studies of Housing First among homeless people with a serious mental disorder.Results: Five studies were included for a total of 7128 participants. Two studies from a randomised controlled trial found no effect of Housing First on arrests compared to treatment as usual. Other studies compared Housing First to other programs or compared configurations of HF and found reductions in criminal justice involvement among Housing First participants.Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that Housing First, on average, has little impact on criminal justice involvement. Community services such as Housing First are potentially an important setting to put in place strategies to reduce criminal justice involvement. However, forensic mental health approaches such as risk assessment and management strategies and interventions may need to be integrated into existing services to better address potential underlying individual criminogenic risk factors. Further outcome assessment studies would be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A wide breadth of research has recognized that seclusion and restraint affects patients, staff, and organizations alike. Therefore, it is essential to understand the viewpoints of all stakeholders to improve practices. The study aimed to understand the context in which seclusion and restraint practices are employed based on the perceptions of staff and inpatients in a psychiatric ward. A case study was performed using a participatory approach. Methods included a 56-hr immersion in the practice setting and individual interviews with staff and patients (n = 17). The main themes discussed were patient characteristics (etiology of the violence, difficult experience), staff characteristics (feelings of safety, rationalization of seclusion use), and environmental characteristics. Both explicit (e.g., hospital protocol) and implicit (e.g., ward rules) standards seem to influence seclusion and restraint management. Our results point toward the potential for developing post-seclusion and restraint review in which both patient and staff perspectives are taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and describe the profiles of patients admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) as they relate to seclusion and restraint. Method: Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and cluster analysis were performed with data for 114 patients admitted to a PICU from June 8, 2010, to June 7, 2011 Results: The MCA revealed that the presence or absence of seclusion and restraint was the main factor explaining the variance. Admitted patients fall into 5 profiles, 2 of which are significantly associated with seclusion and restraint: young psychotic men and women with bipolar disorder. Conclusions: The differentiation of patient profiles as they relate to seclusion and restraint should lead to the development of profile-specific interventions before, during, and after seclusion and restraint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]