Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37438815›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2023

Predictive validity on clinical item-level of the HKT-R divided into clinical patient classes.

Iris Frowijn, Erik Masthoff, Stefan Bogaerts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Iris FrowijnDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. I.Frowijn@tilburguniversity.edu.
Erik MasthoffDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Stefan BogaertsDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause of the heterogeneity of forensic groups, latent class analysis (LCA) can allow for the formation of stronger homogeneous patient classes, which can improve the predictive validity of forensic risk assessment tools, such as the Historical Clinical Future - Revised (HKT-R), which was used in this study. In particular, dynamic clinical risk and protective items are important in treatment and are obligatory assessed annually for every forensic patient with a TBS measure in the Netherlands. Therefore, this study investigated the predictive validity of the HKT-R at clinical item-level per patient class.

methodA cohort of 332 forensic patients, who were discharged from highly secured Forensic Psychiatric Centers/Clinics (FPCs) in the Netherlands between 2004 and 2008, was followed. LCA was performed to cluster this group of patients based on psychopathology and criminal offenses. The predictive validity of the HKT-R clinical items by class was assessed with official reconviction data two and five years after discharge as outcome measure.

resultsFour classes were identified. The predictive validity of the HKT-R clinical items showed differences between and within classes on admission or discharge, and for predicting violent reoffending after two or five years after discharge. DISCUSSION: Different risk/protective factors of the HKT-R may play a role for different subgroups of patients. Therefore, this heterogeneity should be considered for any measure or intervention.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesForensic MedicineHumansLatent Class AnalysisNetherlandsPatient DischargeHKT-R clinical risk factorsLatent class analysisPredictive validityRisk assessmentViolent recidivism

Identifiers

PMID37438815
PMCPMC10339654

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.