Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39488677›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2024

Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.

Lia Parente, Fulvio Carabellese, Alan Felthous, Donatella La Tegola, Mary Davoren, Harry G Kennedy, Felice F Carabellese

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06018298 (Evaluation of Excellence in Italy's Residences for Execution of Security Measures), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT06018298 completednot on this map

Evaluation of Excellence in Italy's Residences for Execution of Security Measures

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of BariRan2018 to 2022Enrolled245ConditionsMental Disorder, Recovery, Schizophrenia and Related Disorders, Personality Disorders and Disturbances in BehaviorArmsTreatment as usual (TAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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.

Lia ParenteSection of Criminology and Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Policlinico Universitario, P.Za G. Cesare, 70124, Bari, Italy.
Fulvio CarabelleseUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro Ionian Department, Via Duomo N. 259, 74123, Taranto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2648-8062
Alan FelthousForensic Psychiatry Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 1438 South Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO, 63104, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5459-9309
Donatella La TegolaSection of Criminology and Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Policlinico Universitario, P.Za G. Cesare, 70124, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1815-4094
Mary DavorenNational Forensic Mental Health Service, Central Mental Hospital, Portrane, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8054-298X
Harry G KennedyThe DUNDRUM Centre for Forensic Excellence, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. kennedh@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3174-3272
Felice F CarabelleseSection of Criminology and Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Policlinico Universitario, P.Za G. Cesare, 70124, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-6754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe set out to assess the appropriateness of current placement of mentally disordered offenders allocated by the courts in Italy to REMS or to forensic community residences. We hypothesised that as in other countries, the match between a standardised assessment and the decision of the court would be imperfect.

methodsThe DUNDRUM Toolkit was translated into Italian. The translation had good psychometric properties. In order to compare the current level of therapeutic security with a calculated safest current placement, we compared the DUNDRUM-1 triage security assessment of need for therapeutic security prior to treatment, with evidence for progress made in treatment (DUNDRUM-3) and forensic recovery (DUNDRUM-4). The more conservative of these two would be taken as the safe current level of need for therapeutic security.

resultsThe Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit had good internal consistency and mean scores had a Reliable Change Index less than one unit. 3.7% of those in REMS (medium security) were assessed as needing high security and 38% were ready to move to a less secure place. In low secure places, 56% were assessed as needing a higher level of therapeutic security and 6% could have moved to open non-secure places.

conclusionsThe Italian translation of the DUNDRUM Toolkit allows an assessment of the current working of the model of care for forensic psychiatry following the reforms of 2015. Most patients are safely placed. A small but important proportion needed high secure places that are not currently available. (3.7% of 604 nationally, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.4%, 7 to 50). A greater use of such measures would enable better health gains and safer outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06018298 Unique Protocol ID: ITAL-EE-REMS.

Indexed as

DUNDRUMForensic PsychiatryItalyMental healthModel of careReformTherapeutic security

Identifiers

PMID39488677
PMCPMC11531105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.