Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26012536›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2015

Risk assessment by client and case manager for shared decision making in outpatient forensic psychiatry.

Rob H S van den Brink, Nadine A C Troquete, Harry Beintema, Tamara Mulder, Titus W D P van Os, Robert A Schoevers, Durk Wiersma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rob H S van den BrinkDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, CC73, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.h.s.van.den.brink@umcg.nl.
Nadine A C TroqueteDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, CC73, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. nadinetroquete@gmail.com.
Harry BeintemaMental Health Organisation Lentis and Forensic Psychiatric Clinic Dr. S. van Mesdag, Groningen, The Netherlands. h.beintema@fpcvanmesdag.nl.
Tamara MulderMental Health Organisation Drenthe, Assen, The Netherlands. tamaramulder@home.nl.
Titus W D P van OsMental Health Organisation Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. titus.van.os@ggzfriesland.nl.
Robert A SchoeversDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, CC73, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.a.schoevers@umcg.nl.
Durk WiersmaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, CC73, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. d.wiersma@umcg.nl.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLGGZ Drenthe · NLGGZ Friesland · NLLentis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn outpatient forensic psychiatry, assessment of re-offending risk and treatment needs by case managers may be hampered by an incomplete view of client functioning. The client's appreciation of his own problem behaviour is not systematically used for these purposes. The current study tests whether using a new client self-appraisal risk assessment instrument, based on the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), improves the assessment of re-offending risk and can support shared decision making in care planning.

methodsIn a sample of 201 outpatient forensic psychiatric clients, feasibility of client risk assessment, concordance with clinician assessment, and predictive validity of both assessments for violent or criminal behaviour were studied.

resultsAlmost all clients (98 %) were able to fill in the instrument. Agreement between client and case manager on the key risk and protective factors of the client was poor (mean kappa for selection as key factor was 0.15 and 0.09, respectively, and mean correlation on scoring -0.18 and 0.20). The optimal prediction model for violent or criminal behaviour consisted of the case manager's structured professional risk estimate for violence in combination with the client's self-appraisal on key risk and protective factors (AUC = 0.70; 95%CI: 0.60-0.80).

conclusionsIn outpatient forensic psychiatry, self-assessment of risk by the client is feasible and improves the prediction of re-offending. Clients and their case managers differ in their appraisal of key risk and protective factors. These differences should be addressed in shared care planning. The new Client Self-Appraisal based on START (CSA) risk assessment instrument can be a useful tool to facilitate such shared care planning in forensic psychiatry.

Indexed as

Case ManagementDecision MakingForensic PsychiatryCrimeCriminalsFemaleHumansMental DisordersOutpatientsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsRisk AssessmentSelf-AssessmentViolence

Identifiers

PMID26012536
PMCPMC4443540
OpenAlexW1595959285

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.