Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879459›Full record

Observational studyBMC psychiatry2015

Recovery and concordance in a secure forensic psychiatry hospital - the self rated DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales.

Mary Davoren, Sarah Hennessy, Catherine Conway, Seamus Marrinan, Pauline Gill, Harry G Kennedy

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. International developments in the provision of recovery-oriented care in forensic mental health services.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mary DavorenDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. davoreM@tcd.ie.
Sarah HennessyDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. sarah.hennessy@hse.ie.
Catherine ConwayDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Catherine.conway3@hse.ie.
Seamus MarrinanDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. seamarr@hotmail.com.
Pauline GillDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Pauline.gill@hse.ie.
Harry G KennedyDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. kennedh@tcd.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Self ReportSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedFemaleForensic PsychiatryHumansMaleMandatory ProgramsMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPatient DischargeProspective StudiesPsychiatric Department, Hospital

Identifiers

PMID25879459
PMCPMC4397875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.