Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32404082›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2020

Perceptions of procedural justice and coercion among forensic psychiatric patients: a study protocol for a prospective, mixed-methods investigation.

Alexander I F Simpson, Irene Boldt, Stephanie Penney, Roland Jones, Sean Kidd, Arash Nakhost, Treena Wilkie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander I F SimpsonComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada. sandy.simpson@camh.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0478-2583
Irene BoldtComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
Stephanie PenneyComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
Roland JonesComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
Sean KiddComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
Arash NakhostDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Treena WilkieComplex Care and Recovery Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

K Grey Foundation RE092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe risk and recovery paradigms are the dominant frameworks informing forensic mental health services and have been the focus of increasing research interest. Despite this, there are significant gaps in our understanding of the nature of mental health recovery in forensic settings (i.e., 'secure recovery'), and specifically, the key elements of recovery as perceived by forensic patients and their treatment providers. Importantly, we know little about how patients perceive the forensic mental health system, to what extent they see it as fair and legitimate, and how these perceptions impact upon treatment engagement, risk for adversity, and progress in recovery.

methodsIn this prospective, mixed-methods study, we investigate patient perceptions of procedural justice and coercion within the context of the forensic mental health system in Ontario, Canada (final N = 120 forensic patients and their primary care providers). We elicit patient self-assessments of risk and progress in recovery, and assess the degree of concordance with clinician-rated estimates of these constructs. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used to assess the degree to which patient perceptions of coercion, fairness and legitimacy impact upon their level of treatment engagement, risk for adversity and progress in recovery. A prospective, two-year follow-up will investigate the impact of patient and clinician perspectives on outcomes in the domains of forensic hospital readmission, criminal reoffending, and rate of progress through the forensic system. DISCUSSION: Results from this mixed-methods study will yield a rich and detailed account of patient perceptions of the forensic mental health system, and specifically whether perceptions of procedural fairness, justice and legitimacy, as well as perceived coercion, systematically influence patients' risk for adversity, their ability to progress in their recovery, and ultimately, advance through the forensic system towards successful community living. Findings will provide conceptual clarity to the key elements of secure recovery, and illuminate areas of similarity and divergence with respect to how patients and clinicians assess risk and recovery needs. In doing so, knowledge from this study will provide a deep understanding of factors that promote patient safety and recovery, and provide a foundation for optimizing the forensic mental health system to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

CoercionMental DisordersSocial JusticeAdultFemaleHumansMaleOntarioPatientsProspective StudiesCoercionForensic mental healthProcedural justiceProtective factorsRecidivismRecoveryRisk assessmentViolence

Identifiers

PMID32404082
PMCPMC7222335
OpenAlexW3027090427

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.