Advertisement

Challenges in Comparing Health-Care Systems Across Different Countries

  • Hans Joachim SalizeEmail author
  • Harald Dreßing
Chapter

Abstract

Only limited international research has been conducted on the complex issue of the placement and treatment of mentally ill offenders (Blaauw et al., Mentally disordered offenders. International perspective on assessment and treatment. Elsevier, The Hague, 2002). Despite a few analyses from recent years, standardized descriptions or comparisons of legal instruments regulating the disposal of mentally ill offenders and/or the different pathways into the various penal or health-care systems are missing. Indicators reflecting how far the scientific progress in forensic psychiatry is depicted by the various national psychiatric, forensic or judicial systems are not implemented internationally. This is in contrast to the controversies the placement and treatment of mentally ill offenders raise worldwide within the criminal justice or health-care systems and the wider public. The need of societies to balance public safety interests with basic human rights principles in penal, forensic and mental health-care practices—which often are contradictory rather than complementary values—requires extensive research on judicial and psychiatric concepts, trial procedures, practice models and their effectiveness. However, due to lacking evaluation standards, effective practices or models are hard to identify and to describe. As a consequence, there is no evidence base available for decision-making, planning or improving forensic psychiatric services or systems, both on a national or international level.

References

  1. 1.
    Large MM, Nielssen O. The Penrose hypothesis in 2004: patient and prisoner numbers are positively correlated in low-and-middle income countries but are unrelated in high-income countries. Psychol Psychother. 2009;82(Pt 1):113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Priebe S, Badesconyi A, Fioritti A, Hansson L, Kilian R, Torres-Gonzales F, Turner T, Wiersma D. Reinstitutionalisation in mental health care: comparison of data on service provision from six European countries. BMJ. 2005;330:123–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chow W, Priebe S. How has the extent of institutional mental healthcare changed in Western Europe? BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salize HJ, Schanda H, Dressing H. From the hospital into the community and back again – a trend towards re-institutionalisation in mental health care. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2008;20:527–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schanda H. The Aschenputtel principle in modern mental health care. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1999;9:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Müller-Isberner R, Hodgins S. Evidence-based treatment of mentally disordered offenders. In: Hodgins S, Müller-Isberner R, editors. Violence, crime and mentally disordered offenders. Chichester: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fioritti A, Xavier M. Background factors and underlying influences. In: Salize HJ, Dressing H, editors. Placement and treatment of mentally disordered offenders – legislation and practice in the European Union. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2005. p. 29–33.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salize HJ, Dressing H, editors. Placement and treatment of mentally disordered offenders – legislation and practice in the European Union. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salize HJ, Lavikainen J, Seppänen A, Gjocaj M. Developing forensic mental healthcare in Kosovo. Front Public Health. 2014;2(26):1–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbui C, Saraceno B. Closing forensic psychiatric hospitals in Italy: a new revolution begins? Br J Psychiatry. 2015;206:445–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arbeitsgruppe Psychiatrie der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der obersten Landesgesundheitsbehörden AOLG. Weiterentwicklung der psychiatrischen Versorgungsstrukturen in Deutschland - Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. Bericht für die Gesundheitsministerkonferenz 2012; 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salize HJ, Dressing H, editors. Mentally disordered persons in European prison systems - needs programmes and outcome. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howard R, McCarthy L, Huband N, Duggan C. Re-offending in forensic patients released from secure care: the role of antisocial/borderline personality disorder co-morbidity, substance dependence and severe childhood conduct disorder. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2013;23:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickard H, Fazel S. Substance abuse as a risk factor for violence in mental illness: some implications for forensic psychiatric practice and clinical ethics. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013;26:349–54.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sturup J, Lindqvist P. Homicide offenders 32 years later - a Swedish population-based study on recidivism. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2014;24:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alemi F, Taxman F, Baghi H, Vang J, Thanner M, Doyon V. Costs and benefits of combining probation and substance abuse treatment. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2006;9:57–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cowell AJ, Hinde JM, Broner N, Aldridge AP. The cost of implementing a jail diversion program for people with mental illness in San Antonio, Texas. Eval Program Plann. 2015;48:57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prentky R, Burgess AW. Rehabilitation of child molesters: a cost-benefit analysis. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1990;60:108–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sampson CJ, James M, Huband N, Geelan S, McMurran M. Cost implications of treatment non-completion in a forensic personality disorder service. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2013;23:321–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations