ArticleBJPsych bulletin2018
External validity and anchoring heuristics: application of DUNDRUM-1 to secure service gatekeeping in South Wales.
Article in BJPsych bulletin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Longitudinal Validity of the DUNDRUM-1 Triage Security Scale in a Canadian Not Criminally Responsible Cohort: A Retrospective Study of 85 Patients.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Article
- Heuristics and cognitive biases: A conceptual analysis.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Race, restriction, risk and reconviction: findings from an England and Wales medium secure cohort.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026Article
- 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
- Examining the need for a high level of therapeutic security at a regional forensic mental health service in Aotearoa New Zealand.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2024Article
- A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders).BMC psychiatry · 2020Observational
- Security needs among patients referred for high secure care in Broadmoor Hospital England.BJPsych open · 2020Article
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
Aims and method Structured clinical judgement tools provide scope for the standardisation of forensic service gatekeeping and also allow identification of heuristics in this decision process. The DUNDRUM-1 triage tool was completed retrospectively for 121 first-time referrals to forensic services in South Wales. Fifty were admitted to medium security, 49 to low security and 22 remained in open conditions.
resultsDUNDRUM-1 total scores differed appropriately between different levels of security. However, regression revealed heuristic anchoring on the 'legal process' and 'immediacy of risk due to mental disorder' items. Clinical implications Patient placement was broadly aligned with DUNDRUM-1 recommendations. However, not all triage items informed gatekeeping decisions. It remains to be seen whether decisions anchored in this way are effective. Declaration of interest Dr Mark Freestone gave permission for AUC values from Freestone et al. (2015) to be presented here for comparison.
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.