4.6 Article

Criminal justice pathways to psychiatric care for psychosis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 207, 期 6, 页码 523-529

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.153882

关键词

-

资金

  1. St Bartholomew's
  2. East London NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Royal London Hospital
  4. National Institute of Health Research UK [RP-PG-6407-10500]
  5. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0407-10500] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Some patients are at higher risk of contact with criminal justice agencies when experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Aims To investigate whether violence explains criminal justice pathways (CJPs) for psychosis in general, and ethnic vulnerability to CJPs. Method Two-year population-based survey of people presenting with a first-episode of psychosis. A total of 481 patients provided information on pathways to psychiatric care. The main outcome was a CJP at first contact compared with other services on the care pathway. Results CJPs were more common if there was violence at first presentation (odds ratio (OR)=4.23, 95% Cl 2.74-6.54, P<0.001), drug use in the previous year (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.50-3.48, P<0.001) and for high psychopathy scores (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.43-4.53, P=0.002). Compared with White British, CJPs were more common among Black Caribbean (OR=2.97, 95% 01 1.54-5.72, P<0.001) and Black African patients (OR=1.95, 95% CI 1.02-3.72, P=0.01). Violence mediated 30.2% of the association for Black Caribbeans, but was not a mediator for Black African patients. These findings were sustained after adjustment for age, marital status, gender and employment. Conclusions CJPs were more common in violent presentations, for greater psychopathy levels and drug use. Violence presentations did not fully explain ethnic vulnerability to CJPs. Copyright and usage (C) The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据