 |
|
Violence by People Discharged From Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Facilities and by Others in the Same Neighborhoods
Henry J. Steadman, PhD;
Edward P. Mulvey, PhD;
John Monahan, PhD;
Pamela Clark Robbins, BA;
Paul S. Appelbaum, MD;
Thomas Grisso, PhD;
Loren H. Roth, MD;
Eric Silver, MA
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55:393-401.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background The public perception that mental disorder is strongly associated with violence drives both legal policy (eg, civil commitment) and social practice (eg, stigma) toward people with mental disorders. This study describes and characterizes the prevalence of community violence in a sample of people discharged from acute psychiatric facilities at 3 sites. At one site, a comparison group of other residents in the same neighborhoods was also assessed.
Methods We enrolled 1136 male and female patients with mental disorders between the ages of 18 and 40 years in a study that monitored violence to others every 10 weeks during their first year after discharge from the hospital. Patient self-reports were augmented by reports from collateral informants and by police and hospital records. The comparison group consisted of 519 people living in the neighborhoods in which the patients resided after hospital discharge. They were interviewed once about violence in the past 10 weeks.
Results There was no significant difference between the prevalence of violence by patients without symptoms of substance abuse and the prevalence of violence by others living in the same neighborhoods who were also without symptoms of substance abuse. Substance abuse symptoms significantly raised the rate of violence in both the patient and the comparison groups, and a higher portion of patients than of others in their neighborhoods reported symptoms of substance abuse. Violence in both patient and comparison groups was most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and most often took place at home.
Conclusions "Discharged mental patients" do not form a homogeneous group in relation to violence in the community. The prevalence of community violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric facilities varies considerably according to diagnosis and, particularly, co-occurring substance abuse diagnosis or symptoms.
INTRODUCTION
FOR 75 YEARS, studies have attempted to estimate the prevalence of violence committed by people discharged from psychiatric facilities in the United States, and to compare that rate with the prevalence of violence by others in their communities.1-3 These studies have been invoked in legal and policy debates concerning standards for hospital admission and discharge, for community placement and monitoring, and for tort liability.4 Four methodological problems consistently have compromised this work: (1) existing studies use weak markers for the occurrence of community violence, such as reliance solely on official arrest records,5 rehospitalization records,6 or uncorroborated self-reports (see Swanson et al7; compare Lidz et al8); (2) due to these weak markers, descriptive information essential for understanding violence in context is often missing from existing studies9; (3) existing studies rarely have reported data on the timing of violent acts, despite the implications for intervention that timing may have10; and (4) existing studies have tended to enroll only subjects who are presumed to have a high base rate of violence; eg, men with a history of violence.8, 11 Because different factors may be associated with violence among men than among women, and with repeated violence than with the first occurrence,12 these inclusion criteria limit the generalizability of reported findings.
This article reports data from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, a project that addressed these 4 methodological issues. Prevalence rates for violence are presented that derive from 3 sources—self-report, reports of collateral informants, and official agency records. The violence is described in terms of the type of act committed, its target, and its location. Prevalence rates are examined for change over time by segmenting a 1-year follow-up into five 10-week periods. Data derive from a broad sample of recently discharged patients at 3 sites. At one site, comparative violence rates were obtained by the same research interviewers applying the same instruments both to patients recently discharged from the hospital and to other persons living in the same neighborhoods.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
PATIENT SAMPLE
Admissions were sampled from acute inpatient facilities at 3 sites: Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, Pa (a university-based specialty hospital); Western Missouri Mental Health Center, Kansas City (a public mental health center); Worcester State Hospital, Worcester, Mass (a state psychiatric hospital); and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester (a university-based general hospital). Selection criteria were (1) civil admissions, (2) between the ages of 18 and 40 years, (3) English-speaking, (4) white or African American ethnicity (or Hispanic in Worcester only), and (5) a medical record diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, depression, dysthymia, mania, brief reactive psychosis, delusional disorder, alcohol or other drug abuse or dependence, or a personality disorder. Eligible patients were sampled according to age, sex, and ethnicity to maintain a consistent distribution of these characteristics across sites. The mean time between hospital admission and approach by the research interviewer to obtain informed consent was 4.5 days. Eligible subjects were excluded if they had been hospitalized for 21 days or more prior to being approached. Data collection began in mid 1992 and ended in late 1995.
HOSPITAL DATA COLLECTION
Hospital data collection was conducted in 2 parts: an interview by the research interviewer to obtain data on demographic and historical factors and an interview by a research clinician (PhD or MA/MSW) to confirm the medical record diagnosis using the DSM-III-R checklist13 (or to confirm a personality disorder using the Structured Interview for DSM-III-R Personality14 when no eligible Axis I diagnosis was present). Checklist diagnoses corresponded to a medical record diagnosis in 85.7% of the cases. Discrepant diagnoses were resolved by a consultant psychiatrist at each site. Patients remaining in the hospital for more than 145 days were dropped from the study (n=3).
Supplementary data were abstracted from patients' records. A full discussion of all measures can be found elsewhere.15 To obtain information on sample bias, similar medical record information was collected for a random sample of patients ( 1000 at each site) who were eligible for the study but not enrolled.
POSTHOSPITAL DISCHARGE DATA COLLECTION
Patients were recontacted in the community by the research interviewers and interviewed 5 times (every 10 weeks) for 1 year from the date of discharge. Patient interviews were in person (89%) or by telephone (11%). A collateral informant was also interviewed (in person, 45%; by telephone, 55%) on the same schedule. During each follow-up, a patient was asked to nominate as a collateral informant the person who was most familiar with his or her behavior in the community. If the nominee did not have at least weekly contact with the subject, the interviewer suggested a more appropriate person based on a review of the subject's social network data. Collateral informants were most often family members (47.1%), but were also friends (23.9%), professionals (13.9%), significant others (12.4%), or others (eg, coworkers, 2.7%). Patients and collateral informants were paid for their participation. Arrest and rehospitalization records were also obtained.
VIOLENCE CODING AND RECONCILIATION
Subjects and collateral informants were asked whether the subject had engaged in several categories of aggressive behavior in the past 10 weeks.8 If a positive response was given, the subject or informant was asked to list the number of times the behavior occurred. Detailed information was obtained about each act, including the target and location.
For statistical analyses, acts were divided into 2 categories of seriousness: violence (battery that resulted in physical injury, sexual assaults, assaultive acts that involved the use of a weapon, or threats made with a weapon in hand) and other aggressive acts (battery that did not result in physical injury). Acts reported by any information source were reviewed by 2 independent coders to obtain a single reconciled report of violence. Only the most serious act for each incident was coded. A hierarchy of coding rules is available from the authors.
COMMUNITY SAMPLE: PITTSBURGH
The University of Pittsburgh's Center for Social and Urban Research identified a community sample in Pittsburgh such that the distribution of the census tracts in which that sample resided was the same as the distribution of the census tracts in which the patients resided during the year following discharge. In addition to living in a specified census tract, the community respondent had to have lived at the current address for at least 2 months, be between the ages of 18 and 40 years, and be of either white or African American ethnicity.
Sample frames were constructed by compiling lists of all addresses within the census tract. To incorporate no-telephone households, 1990 US census data were used to provide an estimate of the number of such households per census tract (3.4% of the total) and that proportion of interviews was obtained by soliciting respondents in public places.
The subjects in the community sample were interviewed only once. They and their collateral informants were questioned about the subjects' behavior in the past 10 weeks. Official arrest records were also obtained.
DATA ANALYSIS
The significance of differences in prevalence rates among diagnostic groups and across the 5 follow-up periods was tested using log linear modeling, fitting what was ultimately a 3 (diagnostic group) x 5 (follow-up) x 2 (violent/not violent) model to the data. Individual frequency values were treated as rank order data and analyzed using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Differences in Pittsburgh between the neighborhood distributions of the community sample and the patient sample were adjusted by weighting subjects in the community sample to make the distributions equivalent. The community sample was weighted again, using an iterative proportional fit process,16 to conform to the 1990 US census distributions on sex, ethnicity, age, and education for the census tracts in which the patients resided during the 1-year follow-up. Analyses between the Pittsburgh patient sample at each follow-up and the weighted community sample were done using hierarchical logistic regression, with violence and other aggressive acts as the binary dependent measures. We could not disaggregate both samples by a diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence, because we did not administer the DSM-III-R checklist to the comparison group. We did, however, administer the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)17 and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST)18 to the comparison sample and to the patients at each follow-up. Therefore, we disaggregated both samples by the presence of 1 or more symptoms on either the MAST or the DAST. Demographic features (age, ethnicity, sex) and social desirability19 (ie, bias to give socially acceptable answers), as well as all possible interaction terms among these variables, were entered first in the equation, followed by the presence of MAST or DAST symptoms. Group membership (whether in the patient group or the community group) was entered next, and the magnitude of this effect was taken as an indicator of whether the community and patient groups differed significantly. Finally, an interaction term representing group membership and presence of alcohol or drug abuse symptoms was entered to assess whether the magnitude of the relationship between symptoms and violence differed across the patient and community groups.
RESULTS
ENROLLMENT AND RETENTION
During the study period, 12873 persons were admitted to the research facilities, of whom 7740 met eligibility criteria (Figure 1). We approached a quota sample of 1695 to participate. The refusal rate was 29.0% (n=492). The final sample that was given a hospital interview was 1136. The median length of hospitalization for enrolled patients at the 3 sites was 9.0 days.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Asterisk includes 34 subjects who dropped out before follow-up 1, 8 subjects with no community time during follow-up 1, and 3 subjects who stayed in the hospital more than 145 days; dagger, includes 36 subjects who subsequently dropped out.
|
|
|
At the Pittsburgh site, 4069 persons were admitted, of whom 2532 met our eligibility criteria (Figure 2). We approached 629 to participate. The refusal rate was 33.2% (n=209). The final sample given a hospital interview was 391. The median length of hospitalization for enrolled patients in Pittsburgh was 15.0 days.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Asterisk includes 23 subjects who dropped out before follow-up 1 and 3 subjects with no community time during follow-up 1; dagger, includes 49 subjects who later refused, 28 subjects later found to be ineligible, and 26 subjects not interviewed because the sample size was achieved; and double dagger, includes 4 subjects who had been in a psychiatric hospital in the past 10 weeks.
|
|
|
We obtained at least 1 follow-up interview for 83.7% of the patients (Pittsburgh sample, 85.9%). Three or more follow-up interviews were obtained for 72.0% of the patients and 77.3% of the collateral informants (Pittsburgh sample, 75.4% and 79.5%, respectively) and all 5 follow-up interviews were obtained for 49.6% of the patients and 44.7% of the collateral informants (Pittsburgh sample, 58.1% and 47.9%, respectively).
For the community group, 10566 of the 287360 residential households in the 208 census tracts in the greater Pittsburgh area were sampled (Figure 2). Telephone screening was used to determine eligibility in most (72.3%) cases. Mailings were used to recruit from households with nonpublished telephone numbers (24.3%).
An estimated 3304 (64%) of the 5175 households contacted were screened for eligibility (the remaining contacts resulting in hang-ups before the study could be explained). Of the 1306 persons screened as eligible, 680 refused and 626 consented. Those who consented during the telephone screening but were not later enrolled included 49 who refused when the interviewer arrived and 28 ultimately who were found ineligible. The refusal rate for community residents screened as eligible, therefore, was 57.0% [(680+49)/(1306-28)]. The final community sample was composed of 519 subjects.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Patients who consented to participate were significantly younger, less likely to have a medical record diagnosis of schizophrenia, and more likely to have medical record diagnoses of alcohol or other drug abuse and personality disorder than patients who refused to participate (Table 1). Compared with enrolled patients who were lost to follow-up, patients in the follow-up sample were significantly more likely to have a medical record diagnosis of bipolar disorder, less likely to have a medical record diagnosis or a medical record history of alcohol or other drug abuse, less likely to have a legal status of gravely disabled, and less likely to have a documented history of violence toward family members or others.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Sample Description
|
|
|
Depression was the most frequent primary diagnosis determined by our research clinicians and a large proportion of cases with a primary diagnosis of mental disorder had a co-occurring diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence (Table 2). In Pittsburgh, as compared with the community sample, the patient sample was significantly more likely (P<.01) to be male (56.5% vs 47.0%) and was significantly older (P<.01) (30.2 years vs 28.8 years). There was no significant racial difference between the Pittsburgh samples (patients, 65.0% white; community, 70.1% white).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Primary Patient Research Diagnosis and Co-occurrence of Substance Abuse/Dependence
|
|
|
PREVALENCE RATES OF PATIENT VIOLENCE
The proportion of patients with at least 1 act of violence during the 1-year follow-up (ie, the period prevalence rate) was 4.5% using agency records alone; 23.7% adding patient self-reported acts that had not been in agency records; and 27.5% adding collateral informant–reported acts that had not been in either agency records or patient self-reports (Table 3). A similar increase is seen with other aggressive acts.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Proportion of Patients With Follow-up Violence or Other Aggressive Acts by Information Source (n = 951)
|
|
|
Following exploratory analyses that indicated the importance of diagnosis, rates of violence and other aggressive acts were calculated separately for 3 diagnostic groups, as determined by our research clinicians. The first group (n=462) consists of patients with a diagnosis of major mental disorder (schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, depression, dysthymia, mania, cyclothymia, or other psychotic disorder [including delusional disorder, atypical psychosis, and brief reactive psychosis]) who did not also have a diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence (the MMD/NSA group). The second group (n=468) consists of patients with a diagnosis of major mental disorder and a co-occurring diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence (the MMD/SA group). The third group (n=185) consists of patients with a diagnosis of an "other" mental disorder (ie, a personality or an adjustment disorder, and several cases of "suicidality") and a co-occurring diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence (the OMD/SA group).
In addition, 21 patients received a research diagnosis of "Other Mental Disorder, No Substance Abuse (OMD/NSA)." This group was too small to permit comparison with the other diagnostic groups, and is included only in analyses of the total patient sample.
The 1-year aggregate prevalence of violence for the OMD/SA group was 43.0%, compared with 31.1% for the MMD/SA group and 17.9% for the MMD/NSA group (Table 4). Analyses revealed significant main effects on violence for diagnostic group ( 2=58.69, df=2, P <.001) and time (2=33.75, df =4, P<.001). The time effect was then examined within each diagnostic group. Violence decreased significantly over the course of the year for the MMD/SA group (2=22.56, df=1, P <.001) and for the OMD/SA group (2=9.96, df=1, P<.01), but not for the MMD/NSA group. Using other aggressive acts as the outcome, there were significant diagnostic group (2=28.82, df=2, P<.001) and time (2=36.99, df=4, P<.001) main effects. There was a significant decrease over time within all 3 groups (MMD/NSA group, 2=20.87, df=1, P<.001; MMD/SA group, 2=7.82, df=1, P<.01; and OMD/SA group, 2=9.89, df=1, P<.01). (To avoid double counting, subjects who committed both violence and an other aggressive act are reported only as "violent" in computing these rates.)
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Prevalence of Violence and Other Aggressive Acts*
|
|
|
We tested 3 artifactual explanations for the decline in violence. First, the decrease may have resulted from greater attrition by patients who were violent. To test this hypothesis, we restricted the analyses for the 2 prevalence-decreasing groups to those subjects who were interviewed at all 5 follow-ups (n=212 for the MMD/SA group; n=70 for the OMD/SA group). The same significant decrease is found (2=12.89, df=1, P<.001). As an additional check, we assigned sample weights to each case based on the probability of that case completing each of the follow-up interviews and recalculated the period prevalence rates.20 Despite our ability to account for significant amounts of the variation in attrition, weighting cases according to their likelihood of attrition produced very little change in the prevalence rates at each follow-up (never more than 1.1%). The downward trend remained stable.
A second possible artifact could be less time at risk for committing violence in the community, owing to more time spent in hospitals or jails in the later follow-up periods. To account for this possibility, we constructed a logistic regression for each diagnostic group with violence as the dependent measure and time period and number of days in the community per follow-up as independent measures. With number of days in the community entered first, the same time effect emerges: there is still a significant decrease in violence over the follow-up periods for the MMD/SA (2=20.06, df=1, P<.001) and OMD/SA (2=9.02, df=1, P<.01) groups, but not for the MMD/NSA group.
Finally, the subjects' response set might have produced the decrease in violence. Subjects might have realized that reporting violence lengthened the interview and, to avoid this, might have censored their reports of violence. We tested this explanation by examining a measure of social support,21 administered in the hospital and at each follow-up, for which a positive response also led to questions that lengthened the interview. This instrument asks a subject the names of others who have been of assistance to him or her in the past 10 weeks. If subjects had learned to censor their reporting of violence, they should also have learned to censor their reporting of other interview-lengthening information. However, the median number of persons named on this social support measure across the 3 diagnostic groups did not decrease significantly over the follow-up periods within any diagnostic group. The decrease in violence over time for the 2 groups with co-occurring substance abuse, therefore, does not appear to be an artifact of our methods.
PREVALENCE RATES OF PATIENT AND COMMUNITY VIOLENCE: PITTSBURGH
Logistic regressions controlling for demographic characteristics, social desirability scores, and all possible interactions of these variables for each follow-up period produced limited evidence of the effect of patient status and strong evidence of the effects of drug and alcohol symptoms (Table 5). The patient sample exhibited significantly higher rates of alcohol or drug abuse symptoms than the community group during the first four 10-week follow-up periods and in terms of violence and other aggressive acts there were significant (P<.05) main effects for alcohol and drug abuse symptoms at each of the follow-up periods. Significant differences between the community and patient groups (controlling for demographics, social desirability, and MAST/DAST symptoms) were found during the first 10-week follow-up period for violence (2=6.81, df=1, P<.01) and during the second 10-week follow-up period for other aggressive acts (2=5.89, df=1, P<.05). There were no significant interactions between drug and alcohol symptoms and patient status at any of the follow-up periods.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Prevalence of Violence and Other Aggressive Acts in Patient and Community Samples by MAST/DAST* Symptoms: Pittsburgh
|
|
|
Although the interaction between patient status and drug and alcohol abuse symptoms is nonsignificant in the total sample, when we disaggregate the sample into those with and without MAST/DAST symptoms, we find a significant effect of patient status for those with symptoms (violence at follow-up 1: 2=4.57, df=1, P<.05; other aggressive acts at follow-up 2: 2=4.12, df=1, P<.05), and no effect of patient status for those without symptoms. This suggests that where a significant effect of patient status is found in the total sample, that effect may be more strongly expressed among subjects with alcohol or drug abuse symptoms.
INDIVIDUAL FREQUENCY RATES OF VIOLENCE
The mean number of violent acts per follow-up period, for those patients who had such acts, was 1.6 (ranging between 1.2 and 1.7 for any given follow-up period). For those with other aggressive acts, the mean number of other aggressive acts per follow-up period was 2.5 (ranging between 2.1 and 2.7 for any given follow-up period). Summed across all 5 follow-up periods, the mean number of violent acts was 2.12 (SD, 1.98) for those with violent acts. The average number of other aggressive acts during the year was 4.64 (SD, 5.84).
The mean annual individual frequencies of violent acts for the diagnostic groups were: MMD/NSA, 1.87 (SD, 1.68); MMD/SA, 2.39 (SD, 2.37); and OMD/SA, 1.98 (SD, 1.46). For other aggressive acts, the mean individual frequencies were: MMD/NSA, 3.67 (SD, 4.78); MMD/SA, 5.10 (SD, 6.62); and OMD/SA, 5.46 (SD, 5.55). Differences among the groups were not significant for violent acts (2=3.47, df=2, P<.18), but were significant for other aggressive acts (2=12.31, df=2, P<.002).
For the Pittsburgh patient sample, the mean number of violent acts was 1.58 (range, 1.10-2.25 across the follow-up periods) and 2.41 for other aggressive acts (range, 2.17-3.04 across the follow-up periods). The mean number of violent acts was 1.71 for those with MAST or DAST symptoms and 1.24 for those without symptoms; the mean number of other aggressive acts was 2.29 for those with MAST or DAST symptoms and 2.53 for those without symptoms.
The mean number of violent acts for those in the community sample who committed such acts was 1.16; the mean number of other aggressive acts was 1.93. The mean number of violent acts was 1.25 for community sample subjects with MAST or DAST symptoms and 1.06 for those without symptoms; the mean number of other aggressive acts was 2.24 for those with MAST or DAST symptoms and 1.78 for those without symptoms.
The mean number of violent acts for the Pittsburgh patient sample during the first follow-up period (2.25) was significantly higher than the rate for the community group (1.16) (2=5.86, df=1, P<.05). The small number of violent or aggressive subjects in the community sample precluded disaggregating individual frequency rates by the presence of MAST/DAST symptoms.
TYPES, TARGETS, AND LOCATIONS OF VIOLENCE
For both the patient and the community samples, the acts that were coded as violence were primarily "kick/bite/choke/hit/beat up" and "weapon threat/weapon use," and the acts that were coded as other aggressive acts were primarily "throw objects/push/grab/shove/slap" (Table 6). The only significant patient-community difference in violence is that patient violence consisted more of forced sex and less of weapon threat/weapon use.
|
|
|
|
Table 6. Types, Targets, and Locations of Violence and Other Aggressive Acts
|
|
|
The targets of both violence and other aggressive acts committed by the patient sample and by the community sample were most often family members, followed by friends and acquaintances (Table 6). There are no significant patient-community differences in targets of violence, but several significant differences in other aggressive acts: patient other aggressive acts were less likely to target spouses and other family members, and more likely to target girlfriends or boyfriends, parental figures, and strangers.
For both the patient and community samples, violence or other aggressive acts were most likely to occur in the subject's home, in the home of another, outdoors or on the street, or in a bar. The only significant differences in location were that patients were more likely than the community group to commit other aggressive acts in their own home, and the community group was more likely than patients to commit other aggressive acts in a bar.
COMMENT
We sought to answer questions regarding the nature of violence by people discharged from acute mental health facilities in the United States, and whether it differed from violence committed by other people living in the same neighborhoods. Our data suggest that it is crucial for future studies to use multiple measures of violence rather than the single measures that have characterized most prior research.22 Relying solely on agency records, we would have reported a 1-year violence rate for all discharged patients of 4.5%. By using 3 independent information sources, we reported a rate 6 times higher (27.5%).
Confirming the findings of others,23-24 we found the presence of a co-occurring substance abuse disorder to be a key factor in violence: the 1-year prevalence was 17.9% for patients with a major mental disorder and without a substance abuse diagnosis, 31.1% for patients with a major mental disorder and a substance abuse diagnosis, and 43.0% for patients with some other form of mental disorder and a substance abuse diagnosis. Our findings underscore the inappropriateness of referring to "discharged mental patients" as a homogeneous class.
These prevalence rates may appear high. However, they are meaningful only in comparison to the prevalence of violence by other residents in the same communities. Studying one site, Pittsburgh, showed that the prevalence of violence among patients without symptoms of substance abuse is statistically indistinguishable from the prevalence of violence among others in their neighborhoods without symptoms of substance abuse. Substance abuse significantly raised the prevalence of violence in both patient and community samples. Among those who reported symptoms of substance abuse, the prevalence of violence among patients was significantly higher than the prevalence of violence among others in their neighborhoods during the first follow-up. The patient sample also was significantly more likely to report such symptoms of substance abuse than was the community sample.
The data on both targets and locations of violence clearly indicate that public fears25 of violence on the street by discharged patients who are strangers to them is misdirected. The people at highest risk are family members and friends who are in their own homes or in the patient's home. The character of violence is remarkably similar whether the violence is committed by discharged patients or by their neighbors.
Our most unexpected finding is the decline in the proportion of subjects engaging in violence over time. Substantive hypotheses to account for this decline are legion. Patients may become more engaged in treatment over time or social support from family members may increase. Rates of violence may peak around the time of hospital admission, when patients are in acute crisis, and remain high for a period of time after discharge because many patients still have active mental disorders after they leave the hospital.
Caution should be exercised before using the rates reported here as summary statistics to characterize violence by discharged patients. We found that the rate of patient violence varied during the course of the 1-year follow-up for the 2 groups with co-occurring substance abuse diagnoses. The effects of hospitalization and treatment on these rates are unknown. In addition, for all 3 patient diagnostic groups, the highest rate of reported violence did not occur during the follow-up year at all, but rather during the 10 weeks prior to the hospitalization during which the patients were enrolled in the study. The prehospitalization rates are likely to be artificially high due to ascertainment bias26 (ie, violence may have precipitated hospitalization). In addition, an inevitable limitation of research in this area is that patient refusal or attrition can compromise the representativeness of the sample studied. Some of the biases we observed are in the direction of patients in our sample being more likely to be violent than other eligible patients (eg, patients who consented were younger than patients who refused) and other biases are in the direction of patients in our sample being less likely to be violent than other eligible patients (eg, followed-up patients were less likely to have a documented history of violence than patients lost to follow-up). It is impossible to estimate the precise effect of these countervailing biases on the results. However, we believe that our results are fairly representative of the community behavior of patients between 18 and 40 years old who are discharged from acute psychiatric facilities in the United States.
Care should also be taken in making patient-community comparisons. We sampled from the census tracts in which the patients resided after discharge. Many of these neighborhoods were disproportionately impoverished and had higher violent crime rates than the city as a whole. We sampled in this manner to control for exposure to environmental opportunities for violence between the patient and the comparison groups. The comparison group was not intended to be an epidemiologically representative sample of the general population of Pittsburgh.
Our future work will attempt to account for the decline observed in the proportion of patients engaging in violence over time. It will also attempt to isolate a variety of risk factors among the patient sample that could have clinical utility for anticipating violent behavior and for designing preventive interventions during the period of highest prevalence of violence (the first 20 weeks after discharge).
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication December 9, 1997.
This research was supported by the Research Network on Mental Health and the Law of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, Ill, and by grant R0149696 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Md. During the writing of this article, Dr Appelbaum was the Fritz Redlich Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif; he acknowledges the support of the Center's Foundations Fund for Research in Psychiatry and NSF grant SBR-9022192.
We are indebted to the members of the Research Network on Mental Health and the Law, including Shirley S. Abrahamson, Richard J. Bonnie, Pamela S. Hyde, Stephen J. Morse, Paul Slovic, and David B. Wexler. We thank Seth Leon and Nan Brady for their significant contributions in data management and analysis and Scott Beach for his assistance with the community sample. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of William O'Connor, PhD, and Deirdre Klassen, PhD, as the site directors in Kansas City, as well as the site coordinators, research clinicians, and field interviewers at each of the 3 data collection sites: Kimberly Ackerson, PhD; Tamara Anderson; Bruce Dembling, PhD; Carolyn Hill-Fotouhi, MA; Jan Meymaris; Dawn O'Day; and Kim Trettel Smith, MA, Worcester; Jennifer King; Ray Milke; Debra Murray; Lorrie Rabin, PhD; Chelsea Ruttenburg; Carol Schubert, MPH; and Esther VonWaldow, MSW, Pittsburgh; and Julie Applegate, PhD; Ron Dancy; Heather Fitz-Charles; Lisa Johnson-Sharpe, PhD; Lisa Kuhn; Susan Kuntz; Walter Janzen, MA; Brian Lindhardt, MA; Becca Matthews; Lisa Rogers; Melba Small; Aileen Utley, PhD; and Rick Wright, Kansas City.
Reprints: Henry J. Steadman, PhD, Policy Research Associates Inc, 262 Delaware Ave, Delmar, NY 12054.
From Policy Research Associates Inc, Delmar, NY (Dr Steadman, Ms Robbins, and Mr Silver); University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa (Drs Mulvey and Roth); University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville (Dr Monahan); and University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Drs Appelbaum and Grisso).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Monahan J, Steadman H. Crime and mental disorder: an epidemiological approach. In: Morris N, Tonry M, eds. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1983:145-189.
2. Hodgins S, ed. Mental Disorder and Crime. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1993.
3. Link B, Stueve A. Psychotic symptoms and the violent/illegal behavior of mental patients compared to community controls. In: Monahan J, Steadman H, eds.Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1994:137-159.
4. Appelbaum P. Almost A Revolution: Mental Health Law and the Limits of Legal Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1994.
5. Cirincione C, Steadman H, Robbins P, Monahan J. Mental illness as a factor in criminality: a study of prisoners and mental patients. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1994;4:33-47.
6. Klassen D, O'Connor W. A prospective study of predictors of violence in adult male mental patients. Law Hum Behav. 1988;12:143-158.
7. Swanson J, Holzer C, Ganju V, Jono R. Violence and psychiatric disorder in the community: evidence from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1990;41:761-770.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Lidz C, Mulvey E, Gardner W. The accuracy of predictions of violence to others. JAMA. 1993;269:1007-1011.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Reiss A, ed, Roth J, ed. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1993.
10. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher C. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals.". Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1986.
11. Steadman H, Felson R. Self-reports of violence: ex-mental patients, ex-offenders, and the general population. Criminology. 1984;22:321-342.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
12. Mulvey E, Blumstein A, Cohen J. Reframing the research question of mental patient criminality. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1986;9:57-65.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Janca A, Helzer J. DSM-III-R criteria checklist. DIS Newsletter. 1990;7:17.
14. Pfohl B, Blum N, Zimmerman M, Stangl M. Structured Interview for DSM-III-R Personality. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa; 1989.
15. Steadman H, Monahan J, Appelbaum P, Grisso T, Mulvey E, Roth L, Robbins P, Klassen D. Designing a new generation of risk assessment research. In: Monahan J, Steadman H, eds. Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1994:297-318.
16. Bishop Y, Fienberg F, Holland P. Discrete Multivariate Analysis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1975.
17. Pokorny A, Miller B, Kaplan H. The brief MAST: a shortened version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. Am J Psychiatry. 1972;129:342-345.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Skinner H. The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addict Behav. 1982;7:363-371.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Crowne D, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1960;24:349-354.
20. Saner H, Ellickson P. Concurrent risk factors for adolescent violence. J Adolesc Health. 1996;19:94-103.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Estroff S, Zimmer C. Social networks, social support, and violence among persons with severe, persistent mental illness. In: Monahan J, Steadman H, eds. Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1994:259-295.
22. Mulvey E, Shaw E, Lidz C. Why use multiple sources in research on patient violence in the community? Crim Behav Ment Health. 1994;4:253-258.
23. Johns A. Substance misuse: a primary risk and a major problem of comorbidity. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1997;9:233-241.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
24. Swanson J, Borum R, Swartz M, Monahan J. Psychotic symptoms and disorders and the risk of violent behaviour in the community. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1996;6:317-338.
25. Wahl O. Media Madness: Public Images of Mental Illness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1995.
26. Wessely S, Taylor P. Madness and crime: criminology vs psychiatry. Crim Behav Mental Health. 1991;1:193-228.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Risk Factors for Violent Offending in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A National Study of Hospitalized Individuals
Langstrom et al.
J Interpers Violence 2009;24:1358-1370.
ABSTRACT
Schizophrenia, Substance Abuse, and Violent Crime
Fazel et al.
JAMA 2009;301:2016-2023.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization
Teasdale
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2009;36:513-535.
ABSTRACT
Capturing the Ebb and Flow of Psychiatric Symptoms With Dynamical Systems Models
Odgers et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2009;166:575-582.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Amygdalofrontal Functional Disconnectivity and Aggression in Schizophrenia
Hoptman et al.
Schizophr Bull 2009;0:sbp012v2-sbp012.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of a Critical Time Intervention to Promote Continuity of Care After Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitalization
Dixon et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2009;60:451-458.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Intricate Link Between Violence and Mental Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions
Elbogen and Johnson
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009;66:152-161.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Brain Dysfunction and Community Violence in Patients With Major Mental Illness
Dinn et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2009;36:117-136.
ABSTRACT
Predicting Recidivism by Mentally Disordered Offenders Using the LSI-R:SV
Ferguson et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2009;36:5-20.
ABSTRACT
The CHESS Method of Forensic Opinion Formulation: Striving to Checkmate Bias
Wills
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008;36:535-540.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Rates of Homicide During the First Episode of Psychosis and After Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Nielssen and Large
Schizophr Bull 2008;0:sbn144v1-sbn144.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Risk for Disciplinary Infractions Among Incarcerated Male Youths: Influence of Psychiatric Disorder
Mcreynolds and Wasserman
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008;35:1174-1185.
ABSTRACT
Violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia: a framework for investigations of causes, and effective treatment, and prevention
Hodgins
Phil Trans R Soc B 2008;363:2505-2518.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of antipsychotic medication effects on reducing violence in people with schizophrenia
Swanson et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2008;193:37-43.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Revisiting the MacArthur Study
Lamberti
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:445-445.
FULL TEXT
The Relationship Between Mental Health Problems and Violence Among Criminal Offenders
Silver et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008;35:405-426.
ABSTRACT
Psychic Plasticity, Resilience, and Reactions to Media Violence: What Is the Right Question?
Twemlow and Bennett
American Behavioral Scientist 2008;51:1155-1183.
ABSTRACT
Characteristics of Persons With Severe Mental Illness Who Have Been Incarcerated for Murder
Matejkowski et al.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008;36:74-86.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act: Implications for Persons With Mental Illness
Price and Norris
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008;36:123-130.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study Revisited: Two Views Ten Years After Its Initial Publication
Torrey et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:147-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Perpetration of Violence, Violent Victimization, and Severe Mental Illness: Balancing Public Health Concerns
Choe et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:153-164.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Risk of Violence by Psychiatric Patients: Beyond the "Actuarial Versus Clinical" Assessment Debate
Buchanan
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:184-190.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Drug-Related Arrests in a Cohort of Public Mental Health Service Recipients
Fisher et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2007;58:1448-1453.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Adapting Evidence-Based Practices for Persons With Mental Illness Involved With the Criminal Justice System
Osher and Steadman
Psychiatr. Serv. 2007;58:1472-1478.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
History of severe mental illness is more common in men convicted of a sexual offence than in men in the general population
Bradford
Evid. Based Ment. Health 2007;10:126-126.
FULL TEXT
Serious Mental Illness and Arrest: The Generalized Mediating Effect of Substance Use
Swartz and Lurigio
Crime Delinquency 2007;53:581-604.
ABSTRACT
Aggressive behaviour, victimisation and crime among severely mentally ill patients requiring hospitalisation
HODGINS et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2007;191:343-350.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CJDATS Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders: A Validation Study
Sacks et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007;34:1198-1215.
ABSTRACT
Perceived Dangerousness of Children With Mental Health Problems and Support for Coerced Treatment
Pescosolido et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2007;58:619-625.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Who Participates in the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS)?
Fletcher et al.
The Prison Journal 2007;87:25-57.
ABSTRACT
CJDATS Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders (CODSI-MD): A Pilot Study
Sacks et al.
The Prison Journal 2007;87:86-110.
ABSTRACT
Criminal Records of Persons Served in the Public Mental Health System
Cuellar et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2007;58:114-120.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Violence and Psychiatric Morbidity in a National Household Population--A Report from the British Household Survey
Coid et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:1199-1208.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Structure of Violent Behavior: A Hierarchical Model
Michie and Cooke
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2006;33:706-737.
ABSTRACT
Predicting community violence from patients discharged from mental health services
DOYLE and DOLAN
Br. J. Psychiatry 2006;189:520-526.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Violence and Mental Illness -- How Strong is the Link?
Friedman
NEJM 2006;355:2064-2066.
FULL TEXT
Detection of Co-Occurring Mental Illness Among Adult Patients in the New Jersey Substance Abuse Treatment System
Hu et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2006;96:1785-1793.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Predictors of Psychosis Remission in Psychotic Disorders That Co-occur With Substance Use
Caton et al.
Schizophr Bull 2006;32:618-625.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Treatment engagement and violence risk in mental disorders
ELBOGEN et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2006;189:354-360.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Co-Occurring Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in the Criminal Justice System: Some Implications for Local Jurisdictions
White et al.
The Prison Journal 2006;86:301-326.
ABSTRACT
Violence and Mental Disorders: Data and Public Policy
Appelbaum
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:1319-1321.
FULL TEXT
Firearm Laws, Patients, and the Roles of Psychiatrists
Norris et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:1392-1396.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Population Impact of Severe Mental Illness on Violent Crime
Fazel and Grann
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:1397-1403.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Violence and Leveraged Community Treatment for Persons With Mental Disorders
Swanson et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:1404-1411.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Violence and psychiatric morbidity in the national household population of Britain: public health implications
Coid et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2006;189:12-19.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Serious Mental Illness and Substance Abuse on Criminal Offenses
Junginger et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2006;57:879-882.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Neuroleptics reconsidered.
Daniels
QJM 2006;99:421-423.
FULL TEXT
A National Study of Violent Behavior in Persons With Schizophrenia.
Swanson et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:490-499.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quantifying the contributions of three types of information to the prediction of criminal conviction using the receiver operating characteristic
BUCHANAN and LEESE
Br. J. Psychiatry 2006;188:472-478.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Methamphetamine Use, Self-Reported Violent Crime, and Recidivism Among Offenders in California Who Abuse Substances
Cartier et al.
J Interpers Violence 2006;21:435-445.
ABSTRACT
Use of Outpatient Commitment or Related Civil Court Treatment Orders in Five U.S. Communities
Swartz et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2006;57:343-349.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of the COVR in Violence Risk Assessment
Melnick et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2006;57:142-142.
FULL TEXT
Use of the COVR in Violence Risk Assessment
Melnick et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2006;57:142-142.
FULL TEXT
"The Wrong Handle": Flawed Fixes of Medicolegal Problems in Psychiatry and the Law
Gutheil et al.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2005;33:432-436.
FULL TEXT
Aggression in Asian Patients with First-Episode Psychosis
Verma et al.
Int J Soc Psychiatry 2005;51:365-371.
ABSTRACT
Mental disorder and violent crime: A problematic relationship
Prins
Probation Journal 2005;52:333-357.
ABSTRACT
Prediction of violent behaviour: Professionals' appraisal
Louw et al.
Criminal Justice 2005;5:379-406.
ABSTRACT
Violent behaviour in schizophrenia: Retrospective study of four independent samples from Prague, 1949 to 2000
VEVERA et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2005;187:426-430.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cannabis use and misuse prevalence among people with psychosis
GREEN et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2005;187:306-313.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The management of violence in general psychiatry
Davison
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 2005;11:362-370.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessment and Management of Patients Who Make Threats Against the President in the Psychiatric Emergency Service
Zitek et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2005;56:1017-1020.
FULL TEXT
Exploring Predictors of Institutional Misbehavior among Male Korean Inmates
Lee and Edens
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2005;32:412-432.
ABSTRACT
Antisocial Personality, Psychopathy, and Violence in Persons with Dual Disorders: A Longitudinal Analysis
Crocker et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2005;32:452-476.
ABSTRACT
Violence and the Mentally Ill: Victims, Not Perpetrators
Eisenberg
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005;62:825-826.
FULL TEXT
An Actuarial Model of Violence Risk Assessment for Persons With Mental Disorders
Monahan et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2005;56:810-815.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Gender Differences in Criminality: Bipolar Disorder with Co-occurring Substance Abuse
Friedman et al.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2005;33:188-195.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Cognitive, Behaviorally Based Program for Patients With Persistent Mental Illness and a History of Aggression, Crime, or Both: Structure and Correlates of Completers of the Program
Yates et al.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2005;33:214-222.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Newspaper Stories as Measures of Structural Stigma
Corrigan et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2005;56:551-556.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Family Violence among Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Neglected Area of Research
Solomon et al.
Trauma Violence Abuse 2005;6:40-54.
ABSTRACT
Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Suicide Attempts and Violence Among Psychiatric Inpatients
Krakowski and Czobor
Psychiatr. Serv. 2004;55:1414-1419.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Exploring Prison Adjustment among Female Inmates: Issues of Measurement and Prediction
Warren et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2004;31:624-645.
ABSTRACT
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Wysoker et al.
J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2004;10:247-253.
Applying a Forensic Actuarial Assessment (the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide) to Nonforensic Patients
Harris et al.
J Interpers Violence 2004;19:1063-1074.
ABSTRACT
Identifying Subtypes of Civil Psychiatric Patients at High Risk for Violence
Skeem et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2004;31:392-437.
ABSTRACT
Effect of Managed Care on Access to Mental Health Services Among Medicaid Enrollees Receiving Substance Treatment
Bigelow et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2004;55:775-779.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Course of Patients With Histories of Aggression and Crime After Discharge From a Cognitive-Behavioral Program
Kunz et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2004;55:654-659.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Multiple-Models Approach to Violence Risk Assessment Among People with Mental Disorder
Banks et al.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2004;31:324-340.
ABSTRACT
Substance misuse and violent crime: Swedish population study
Grann and Fazel
BMJ 2004;328:1233-1234.
FULL TEXT
Criminal Offending in Schizophrenia Over a 25-Year Period Marked by Deinstitutionalization and Increasing Prevalence of Comorbid Substance Use Disorders
Wallace et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2004;161:716-727.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Gender Differences in Violent Behaviors: Relationship to Clinical Symptoms and Psychosocial Factors
Krakowski and Czobor
Am. J. Psychiatry 2004;161:459-465.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Triple Stigma: Persons with Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Problems in the Criminal Justice System
Hartwell
Criminal Justice Policy Review 2004;15:84-99.
ABSTRACT
Violence Risk Factors in Stalking and Obsessional Harassment: A Review and Preliminary Meta-Analysis
Rosenfeld
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2004;31:9-36.
ABSTRACT
Police Officers' Attitudes Toward and Decisions About Persons With Mental Illness
Watson et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2004;55:49-53.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Profiling Mentally Disordered Prison Inmates: A Case Study in New Jersey
Wolff et al.
J Correct Health Care 2004;11:5-29.
ABSTRACT
Standardized Assessment of Substance-Related, Other Psychiatric, and Comorbid Disorders among Probationers
Lurigio et al.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2003;47:630-652.
ABSTRACT
Violent Victimization of Persons With Co-occurring Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders
Sells et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2003;54:1253-1257.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
From Whence Comes Mental Illness Stigma?
Watson et al.
Int J Soc Psychiatry 2003;49:142-157.
ABSTRACT
Short-Term Outcomes for Offenders With Mental Illness Released From Incarceration
Hartwell
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2003;47:145-158.
ABSTRACT
Persecutory Ideation and Depression in Mild Violence Among Incarcerated Adult Males
Beal et al.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2003;47:159-170.
ABSTRACT
Factors Associated with Violence in Stalking and Obsessional Harassment Cases
Rosenfeld and Harmon
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2002;29:671-691.
ABSTRACT
Mental Disorder and Violence: Personality Dimensions and Clinical Features
Nestor
Am. J. Psychiatry 2002;159:1973-1978.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk
Kennedy
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 2002;8:433-443.
FULL TEXT
Recidivism and Use of Services Among Persons With Mental Illness After Release From Prison
Lovell et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2002;53:1290-1296.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Multiple Models Approach to Assessing Recidivism Risk: Implications for Judicial Decision Making
Silver and Chow-Martin
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2002;29:538-568.
ABSTRACT
A Prevention-Based Paradigm for Violence Risk Assessment: Clinical and Research Applications
Douglas and Kropp
Criminal Justice and Behavior 2002;29:617-658.
ABSTRACT
Risk, Response, and Mental Health Policy: Learning from the Experience of the United Kingdom
Wolff
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2002;27:801-832.
ABSTRACT
The Social-Environmental Context of Violent Behavior in Persons Treated for Severe Mental Illness
Swanson et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2002;92:1523-1531.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Object Relations in Criminal Psychopaths
Brody and Rosenfeld
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2002;46:400-411.
ABSTRACT
|
