Effectiveness of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment on Forensic and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the increasing literature on forensic assertive community treatment (FACT), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of FACT among justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were included in the meta-analyses for a total of 1,246 participants. Mixed results regarding health-related outcomes were found. The pre-post FACT analysis and comparison with control groups did not yield significant results other than increased outpatient service use. Results on forensic outcomes were more compelling. Both the narrative review and the meta-analysis highlighted that FACT programs may improve justice outcomes such as the number of days spent in jail. More high quality and multisite randomized controlled trials are needed to consolidate findings. Further research is needed to examine other psychosocial factors related to FACT program success.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".