MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209436333 · doi:10.1177/08862605211050100

Legally Mandated, Formally Pressured, or Voluntary Anger Treatment: Associations With Treatment Recommendations, Refusal, and Completion

2021· article· en· W3209436333 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Seto, Lindsay V. Healey, Adekunle G. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legally mandated treatment is common in the criminal justice system, for example, for anger management, substance misuse, and intimate partner violence. Past studies have compared voluntary and legally mandated treatment participants but have not distinguished a third, in-between group that is formally pressured to participate in treatment, but not mandated by the criminal justice system. The current study aimed to assess differences on individual characteristics (e.g., sociodemographic and psychiatric) and baseline measures of psychopathology (e.g., anger, aggression, and depression) across three levels of voluntariness and to determine whether voluntariness was associated with treatment recommendation, refusal, and completion at an outpatient anger treatment clinic. Data were retrospectively gathered from the clinical charts of 405 participants. Referrals were classified as voluntary (e.g., self-referred, 61%), formally pressured (e.g., required by work, 14%), or legally mandated (e.g., court order, 25%). Legally mandated participants were younger, more likely to have substance use disorder, less likely to be women, to have a high school education, or to be on psychiatric medications compared to the other two groups. Voluntary participants scored higher on measures of self-reported anger, depression, and stress than the legally mandated participants. Legally mandated participants in particular presented with non-clinical levels of anger and aggression. Level of voluntariness did not affect the decision to recommend individual or group therapy after an intake assessment, but legally mandated participants were significantly more likely ( OR = 2.30) than voluntary participants to refuse recommended treatment. Level of voluntariness did not have a significant association with treatment completion. Findings support our distinction between legally mandated and formally pressured participants, but do not support previous research that suggests legally mandated individuals have lower attrition rates in similar treatment programs. The study has implications for the criminal justice system and for anger treatment programs who admit participants with varying levels of voluntariness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207