Advertisement

Prioritizing Research in Forensic Psychiatry: A European Perspective

  • Florence Thibaut
  • Thierry Pham
Chapter

Abstract

In general, forensic psychiatry remains an under-researched field with scarce epidemiological and research data. Some important clinical aspects are still pending in all European countries, such as the relationships between the psychiatric diagnoses and the penal codes, the systematic use of standardized tools for diagnosis or evaluation of risk of offending, the implementation of prevention programs in at-risk populations (such as adolescents with antisocial personality disorders or sexual fantasies or activities involving children, etc.), and the monitoring of patient and institution changes using quality of life measures in order to improve care strategies and trajectories in forensic populations.

Systematic use of standardized assessment tools for diagnosis, violence risk measurement, or quality of life should be strongly promoted in European forensic populations. Training of prison mental health caregivers should become a prerequisite for medical staff and other caregivers working in European prisons.

Finally, national and international research on psychiatric prevalence in prisons and on prison mental health care as well as on violence must be increased, and the European Research Council should urgently add this topic to their list of research themes.

Keywords

Forensic psychiatry Violence Sex offenders Prison European countries Research 

References

  1. 1.
    Salize HJ, Harald D, editors. Placement and treatment of mentally disordered offenders: legislation and practive in the European Union. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salize HJ, Dressing H, Peitz M. Research project: compulsory admission and involuntary treatment of mentally ill patients—legislation and practice in EU-member states. Grant agreement No. SI2.254882 (2000CVF3-407). Final report; 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salize HJ, Dressing H, Kief C. Research project: mentally disordered persons in European prison systems—needs, programmes and outcome (EUPRIS). Grant Agreement No. 2004106 EUPRIS. Final report; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hassan L, Senior J, Frisher M, Edge D, Shaw J. A comparison of psychotropic medication prescribing patterns in East of England prisons and the general population. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28:357–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tully J, Larkin F, Fahy T. New technologies in the management of risk and violence in forensic settings. CNS Spectr. 2015;20(3):287–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oswald P, Saloppé X, Ducro C, Macquet D, Cornu PJ, Pham HT, Delaunoit B. Caractéristiques cliniques d’une population internée: un cas particulier, de l’Etablissement de Défense Sociale “Les Marronniers” à Tournai (Belgique). L’Encéphale. 2016;43(3):229–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pham HT, Ducro C, Martin M, Pihet B. Projet d’évaluation continue des caractéristiques diagnostiques, de l’environnement social et de la prise en charge des AICS au sein des équipes spécialisées en Région Wallonne. Ann Méd-Psychol. 2010;168:458–61.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thibaut F, De La Barra F, Gordon H, Cosyns P, Bradford JM. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of paraphilias. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010;11(4):604–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thibaut F, Bradford JMW, Briken P, De La Barra F, Hässler F, Cosyns P. The WFSBP Task Force on Sexual Disorders. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the treatment of adolescent sexual offenders with paraphilic disorders. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2015;23:1–37.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tenbergen G, Wittfoth M, Frieling H, Ponseti J, Walter M, Walter H. The neurobiology and psychology of pedophilia: recent advances and challenges. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salize HJ, Dressing H. Epidemiology of involuntary placement of mentally ill people across the European Union. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:163–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dressing H, Kief C, Salize HJ. Prisoners with mental disorders in Europe. Br J Psychiatry. 2008;194(1):88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol Assess. 2009;21(1):1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, Grann M. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24,827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e4692.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hurducas CC, Singh JP, de Ruiter C, Petrila J. Violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review of surveys. Int J Forens Mental Res. 2014;13(3):181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, et al. Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006;61(4):271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Psychiatric Association, et al. Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Arlington, VA: Author; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Britain, Great, et al. Schizophrenia: core interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in primary and secondary care. Clinical guideline 1. In:National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Council, Nursing Midwifery. Standards of proficiency for specialist community public health nurses. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council; 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh JP, Desmarais S, Hurducas C, Arbach-Lucioni K, Condemarin C, Dean K, et al. International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: a global survey of 44 countries. Int J Forens Ment Health. 2014;13:193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh JP, Mulvey EP, Yang S, Ragee Group, Pham HT. Reporting guidance for violence risk assessment predictive validity studies: the RAGEE statement. Law Hum Behav. 2015;39(1):15–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh JP, Grann M, Fazel S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31:499–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hare RD. The hare psychopathy checklist-revised. 2. Multi-Health Systems: Toronto, ON; 2003.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR-20: assessing risk for violence. Version 2. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute; 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arkes HR. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications for debiasing. Psychol Bull. 1991;110:486–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heilbrun K, Dvoskin J, Hart S, McNiel D. Violence risk communication: implications for research, policy, and practice. Health Risk Soc. 1999;1:91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. Rehabilitation through the lens of the risks-needs responsivity model. In: McNeil F, Raynor P, Trotter C, editors. Offenders supervision: new directions in theory, research and practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harper A, Power M. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHOQOL Group. Australian WHOQOL-100, WHOQOL-BREF and CA-WHOQOL instruments: user’s manual and interpretation guide. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne WHOQOL Field Study Centre, University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, St. Vincent’s Mental Health Service; 2000.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saloppé X, Pham HT. Validation du WHOQOL-bref en hôpital psychiatrique sécuritaire. Psychiatrie et violence. 2006;6(1).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saloppé X, Pham HT. L’évaluation de la qualité de vie en défense sociale. Acta Psychiatr Belg. 2006;106(2):1–12.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saloppé X, Pham HT. Impact des troubles mentaux sur la qualité de vie perçue par des patients issus d’un hôpital psychiatrique sécuritaire. L’Encéphale. 2007;33(6):892–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vorstenbosch EC, Bouman YH, Braun PC, Bulten EB. Psychometric properties of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: quality of life assessment for long-term forensic psychiatric care. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2014;2(1):335–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Nieuwenhuizen CH, Schene AH, Koeter WJ. Quality of life in forensic psychiatry: an unreclaimed territory? Int Rev Psychiatry. 2002;14:198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wong C, Douglas KS, Mear R, Theny A, McOuatt H. Examining the psychometric properties of two quality of life instruments in civil and forensic psychiatrics patients. Poster presented IAFMHS, Vienna, Austria; 2008.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pham HT, Saloppé X. Influence of psychopathy on self-perceived quality of life in forensic patients: a cohort study in Belgium. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2013;24(1):31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saloppé X, Hayoit A, Marghem B, Pham HT. Perception de la qualité de vie en fonction de la période d’incarcération. Acta Psychiatr Belg. 2014;114(3):19–30.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liebling A. Prisons and their moral performance: a study of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ward T, Marshall WL. Good lives, aetiology and the rehabilitation of sex offenders: a bridging theory. J Sex Aggress. 2004;10:153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Hospital Cochin (site Tarnier), University Sorbonne Paris Cité (Faculty of Medicine Paris Descartes), INSERM U 894 (Centre Psychiatry and Neurosciences)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Forensic PsychologyUMonsBelgium
  3. 3.Centre de Recherche en Défense SocialeTournaiBelgium

Personalised recommendations