Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35546946›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Impact of Legal Traditions on Forensic Mental Health Treatment Worldwide.

Pavlos Beis, Marc Graf, Henning Hachtel

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pavlos BeisDepartment of Forensics, University Psychiatric Clinic Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marc GrafDepartment of Forensics, University Psychiatric Clinic Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Henning HachtelDepartment of Forensics, University Psychiatric Clinic Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Forensic psychiatry is a subspecialty dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill offenders. However, forensic treatment standards vary. Differences arise among forensic treatment standards, due to variations in either the legal framework, the general psychiatric treatment standards, or the forensic training standards. Thus, to date there is no evidence-based pattern for how forensic services should be organized and provided. Aims: The aim of this article is to compare forensic services in various countries in order to contribute to the current debate on international forensic treatment standards, by informing about existing differences in available policies. Methods: This scoping review was conducted by reviewing the academic literature regarding forensic treatment around the world. Studies were identified from Pub-Med and Google-Scholar. Keywords for the search included "forensic psychiatry," "mentally ill offenders," "legal framework," "jurisdiction," and the names of geographical regions. Results: Forensic treatment admission varies significantly around the world. There are countries that do not recognize forensic psychiatry as a subspecialty, whereas other countries apply insufficient forensic training. Most countries provide inpatient treatment for mentally ill offenders. However, service organization varies, including where the services are delivered (prisons, high-security hospitals, and general psychiatric departments). Forensic services are mainly centralized, although the need for outpatient care is emerging. Discussion: Differences may originate mainly from variations in the legal tradition. These differences combined with the limited evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention imply the need for the optimization of forensic treatment standards on an international level. Therefore, further follow-up studies are needed.

Indexed as

forensic psychiatryforensic servicelegal frameworksmental healthtreatment standards

Identifiers

PMID35546946
PMCPMC9082492
OpenAlexW4224685049

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.