Quantitative Outcomes for Shared Assessment and Management in Forensic Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite leading models of mental health care encouraging user involvement, users in forensic mental health (FMH) report poor involvement given the difficulty in reconciling shared approaches with risk-averse and legally mandated settings. While previous research has demonstrated qualitative benefits to shared approaches in FMH and has led to a proliferation of self-rated assessment tools, there remains to quantify agreement on self-rated tools and to clarify the impact of shared approaches on care. This meta-analysis examines (1) the correlation between clinician and user ratings, (2) the predictive validity of self-ratings for violence, and (3) the effects of shared risk management on violence and restriction in FMH. Five databases were searched from inception to April 2024, selecting for adult FMH inpatients, shared risk assessment, needs assessment or violence management as interventions, and quantitative outcomes (correlation, agreement, predictive validity, and effect on violence or restriction rates). Fifteen quantitative evaluations were retained. One of three planned meta-analyses could be conducted, with seven records providing paired clinician–user t -tests. Eleven more records provided clinical recommendations on operationalizing shared approaches. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant and large paired standard difference of .95 (95% CI = [.49,1.42]) across tools, with significant differences in DUNDRUM-3, DUNDRUM-4, and CANFOR sub-models. While acknowledging between-study heterogeneity, results substantiate quantitative differences where clinicians generally rate more needs and lesser progress than users across tools, showing that self-ratings can and should be used to broach collaborative discussions on needs and progress during FMH treatment. There remains an evidence gap for quantitative benefits in care outcomes and a need to standardize agreement measures for future comparisons and clinical sub-group analyses.
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 | 0.049 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".