Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35280154›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Effects of Implementing the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for Mechanical Restraint in a Forensic Male Population: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster-Randomized Design.

Jacob Hvidhjelm, Mette Brandt-Christensen, Christian Delcomyn, Jette Møllerhøj, Volkert Siersma, Jesper Bak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob HvidhjelmClinical Mental Health and Nursing Research Unit, Mental Health Center Sct Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital - Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mette Brandt-ChristensenMental Health Centre Sct Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital - Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian DelcomynMental Health Centre Sct Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital - Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jette MøllerhøjHead of Centre, Competence Centre for Forensic Psychiatry, Mental Health Centre Sct Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital - Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Volkert SiersmaThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesper BakClinical Mental Health and Nursing Research Unit, Mental Health Center Sct Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital - Mental Health Services CPH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mental Health Services · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment and formulation of the risk of violence and other unwanted behaviors at forensic psychiatric facilities have been attempted for decades. Structured professional judgment tools, such as the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), are among the recent attempts to overcome the challenge of accomplishing these goals. This study examined the effect of implementing START in clinical practice for the most serious adverse events among the target group of severely mentally ill forensic psychiatric inpatients. Results were based on the use of mechanical restraints as an outcome. This study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized controlled trial and was conducted over 5 years. It included eight forensic psychiatric units. Fifty out of 156 patients who had a basic aggression score of more than 0 were included in the study. We found that the rate of mechanical restraint use within the START period were 82% [relative risk (RR) = 0.18], lower than those outside of the START period. Patients evaluated within the START period were also found to have a 36% (RR = 0.64) lower risk of having higher Brøset Violence Checklist scores than patients evaluated outside the START period. Previous studies on START have primarily focused on validation, the predictive capability of the assessment, and implementation. We were only able to identify one study that aimed to identify the benefits and outcomes of START in a forensic setting. This study showed a significant reduction in the chance for inpatients in a forensic psychiatric facility to become mechanically restrained during periods where the START was used as risk assessment.

Indexed as

coercionforensicmechanical restraintmental healthpsychiatryrisk assessmentShort-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability

Identifiers

PMID35280154
PMCPMC8907583
OpenAlexW4213450474

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.