Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 May;202(5):365-71.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.113043. Epub 2013 Mar 21.

Risk assessment and shared care planning in out-patient forensic psychiatry: cluster randomised controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Risk assessment and shared care planning in out-patient forensic psychiatry: cluster randomised controlled trial

N A C Troquete et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2013 May.

Abstract

Background: Forensic psychiatry aims to reduce recidivism and makes use of risk assessment tools to achieve this goal. Various studies have reported on the predictive qualities of these instruments, but it remains unclear whether their use is associated with actual prevention of recidivism in clinical care.

Aims: To test whether an intervention combining risk assessment and shared care planning is associated with a reduction in violent and criminal behaviour.

Method: A cluster randomised controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1042) was conducted in three out-patient forensic psychiatric clinics. The intervention comprised risk assessment with the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) and a shared care planning protocol formulated according to shared decision-making principles. The control group received usual care. The outcome consisted of the proportion of clients with violent or criminal incidents at follow-up.

Results: In total 58 case managers and 632 of their clients were included. In the intervention group (n = 310), 65% received the intervention at least once. Findings showed a general treatment effect (22% of clients with an incident at baseline v. 15% at follow-up, P<0.01) but no significant difference between the two treatment conditions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89-2.44, P = 0.15).

Conclusions: Although risk assessment is common practice in forensic psychiatry, our results indicate that the primary goal of preventing recidivism was not reached through risk assessment embedded in shared decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Little evidence for the usefulness of violence risk assessment.
    Wand T, Large M. Wand T, et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;202:468. doi: 10.1192/bjp.202.6.468. Br J Psychiatry. 2013. PMID: 23732941 No abstract available.
  • Authors' reply.
    Troquete N, van den Brink RH, Beintema H, Mulder T, van Os TW, Schoevers RA, Wiersma D. Troquete N, et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;202:468-9. Br J Psychiatry. 2013. PMID: 24734269 No abstract available.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources