Standards of treatment in Forensic Mental Health: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: In Forensic Mental Health, standards of treatment offer a legal, ethical and organizational backbone for professionals facing challenging patients and complex procedures. Grounded in UN resolutions, standards implement human rights and ethical principles in forensic psychiatry. Guidelines establish recommendations for optimizing patient care and agreements on minimum standards. Internationally, diverse approaches to standards and guidelines have developed due to differing medicolegal systems. OBJECTIVES: This review´s objective was to provide insight into which areas are considered essential in standards of treatment and guidelines in forensic psychiatry. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate if American Psychological Association (APA) principles for the publication and implementation of guidelines were applied and if European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) criteria were considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out. PubMed, Psyindex, Livivo, Scopus, Google Search and Google Scholar were searched for records published by August 2022. The following search terms were used in different variations and combinations: “forensic", “mental health”, “psychiatry”, "standards”, “treatment” “service provision “principles” “quality” “indicators” “Forensische Psychiatrie” “Maßregelvollzug” and “Qualitätsindikatoren”. Standards, guidelines and reviews in Forensic Mental Health in English and German were included. The guidelines were assessed by applying APA principles for guidelines and CPT recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 12 documents. Eight documents were excluded as they were focusing only on models of care, forensic evaluation or were in the state of a discussion paper for one specific healthcare system. Four publications from Australia, Canada, Germany and UK were included in narrative synthesis. The selected documents vary in scope, objective, thematic focus on ethical or practical aspects, and level of detail. Our assessment showed that APA-recommended elements of a guideline were often missing. The guidelines discussed were also not fully compliant with CPT recommendations. A more extensive source citation is often needed. In total, “Standards for Forensic Mental Health Services” (UK, 2021) demonstrated good compliance with APA and CPT criteria and comparatively the best practical applicability. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that standards and guidelines in forensic mental health still require improvement in terms of formal frameworks of medical guidelines. Human rights compliance in forensic psychiatry must be continued to be monitored and standards of treatment and guidelines offer an important opportunity to ensure adherence. Further research on the implementation of standards into day-to-day procedures is needed. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».