Observational studyBMC psychiatry2015
Recovery and concordance in a secure forensic psychiatry hospital - the self rated DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales.
Observational study in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quantitative Outcomes for Shared Assessment and Management in Forensic Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial of cognitive remediation for a national cohort of forensic patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2019Trial
- Patient engagement in forensic mental health care: a scoping review.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- International developments in the provision of recovery-oriented care in forensic mental health services.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025Article
- Collaborative risk assessment and management planning in secure mental health services in England: protocol for a realist review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Neuroethics and treatment without consent.CNS spectrums · 2025Article
- Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.International journal of mental health systems · 2024Article
- Excellence in forensic psychiatry services: international survey of qualities and correlates.BJPsych open · 2023Article
- Article
- A review and comparative analysis of the risk-needs-responsivity, good lives, and recovery models in forensic psychiatric treatment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2021Article
- Forensic psychiatry and Covid-19: accelerating transformation in forensic psychiatry.Irish journal of psychological medicine · 2021Article
- Outcome Measures in Forensic Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review of Instruments and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2021Article
- Outcome measures of risk and recovery in Broadmoor High Secure Forensic Hospital: stratification of care pathways and moves to medium secure hospitals.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Security needs among patients referred for high secure care in Broadmoor Hospital England.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Perceptions of procedural justice and coercion among forensic psychiatric patients: a study protocol for a prospective, mixed-methods investigation.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- The appropriateness of DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 for Māori in forensic mental health services in New Zealand: participatory action research.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- The Perspective of Forensic Inpatients With Psychotic Disorders on Protective Factors Against Risk of Violent Behavior.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Perspective On Excellence in Forensic Mental Health Services: What We Can Learn From Oncology and Other Medical Services.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetention in a secure forensic psychiatric hospital may inhibit engagement and recovery. Having validated the clinician rated DUNDRUM-3 (programme completion) and DUNDRUM-4 (recovery) in a forensic hospital, we set out to draft and validate scales measuring the same programme completion and recovery items that patients could use to self-rate. Based on previous work, we hypothesised that self-rating scores might be predictors of objective progress including conditional discharge. We hypothesised also that the difference between patients' and clinicians' ratings of progress in treatment and other factors relevant to readiness for discharge (concordance) would diminish as patients neared discharge. We hypothesised also that this difference in matched scores would predict objective progress including conditional discharge.
methodIn a prospective naturalistic observational cohort study in a forensic hospital, we examined whether scores on the self-rated DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales or differences between clinician and patient ratings on the same scales (concordance) would predict moves between levels of therapeutic security and conditional discharge over the next twelve months.
resultsBoth scales stratified along the recovery pathway of the hospital, but clinician ratings matched the level of therapeutic security more accurately than self ratings. The clinician rated scales predicted moves to less secure units and to more secure units and predicted conditional discharge but the self-rated scores did not. The difference between clinician and self-rated scores (concordance) predicted positive and negative moves and conditional discharge, but this was not always an independent predictor as shown by regression analysis. In regression analysis the DUNDRUM-3 predicted moves to less secure places though the HCR-20 C & R score dominated the model. Moves back to more secure places were predicted by lack of concordance on the DUNDRUM-4. Conditional discharge was predicted predominantly by the DUNDRUM-3.
conclusionsPatients accurately self-rate relative to other patients however their absolute ratings were consistently lower (better) than clinicians' ratings and were less accurate predictors of outcomes including conditional discharge. Quantifying concordance is a useful part of the recovery process and predicts outcomes but self-ratings are not accurate predictors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.