How many forensic assertive community treatment teams do we need?
How many forensic assertive community treatment teams do we need?
复制标题
我们需要多少个法医自信的社区治疗团队？
DOI：
10.1176/ps.2008.59.2.205
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cusack,KarenJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cuddeback,GaryS;Morrissey,JosephP;Cusack,KarenJ
Cuddeback 博士隶属于塞西尔·谢普斯健康服务研究中心和北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校社会工作学院，地址：725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., CB 7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599（电子邮件：cuddeback@mail.schsr.unc.edu）。莫里西博士在卫生政策与管理系、公共卫生学院和塞西尔·G·谢普斯卫生服务研究中心工作。库萨克博士在医学院精神病学系和塞西尔·G·谢普斯健康服务研究中心工作。文章的部分内容已于 2006 年 11 月 8 日在波士顿举行的美国公共卫生协会年会上发表。是有保证的。然而，还需要更严格的研究。此外，总的来说，这些研究的结果很有希望，但每项研究都使用了不同的资格标准，并且这些研究并没有让我们在确定 FACT 目标人群方面更接近达成共识。例如，Lamberti 及其同事 (12) 使用了严重的精神疾病和至少一次逮捕； McCoy 及其同事 (13) 使用了频繁的监禁和住院史，并灵活地考虑了精神疾病的严重程度；在 MIOCRG 研究 (14) 中，使用了特定于提供者的资格标准，即某些精神疾病和与刑事司法系统的某些接触或潜在接触。上面回顾的文献中出现了几个重要问题。首先，FACT 的证据是有希望的，但显然还需要更多的研究。其次，FACT 的目标人群尚不清楚。第三，尽管缺乏证据且缺乏明确的目标人群，FACT 仍被广泛传播。 ACT 对于所有患有严重精神疾病的人来说既不合适也不具有成本效益，因此 FACT 对于所有涉及刑事司法系统的严重精神疾病患者来说可能既不合适也不具有成本效益。然而，确定谁应该接受 FACT 的资格标准尚未确定。制定这些标准是扩大证据基础的第一步，也是关键的一步
Dr. Cuddeback is affiliated with the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., CB 7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (e-mail: cuddeback@ mail. schsr. unc. edu). Dr. Morrissey is with the Department of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, and the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research. Dr. Cusack is with the Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, and the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research. Portions of article were presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Nov 8, 2006, Boston. are warranted. However, more rigorous research is needed. Moreover, the results of these studies are promising, in general, but each study used different eligibility criteria and the studies do not move us closer to a consensus on identifying the target population for FACT. For example, Lamberti and colleagues (12) used severe mental illness and at least one arrest; McCoy and colleagues (13) used a history of frequent incarcerations and hospitalizations, with flexibility regarding severity of mental illness; and in the MIOCRG study (14), provider-specific eligibility criteria were used—that is, some mental illness and some contact or the potential for contact with the criminal justice system.Several important issues emerge from the literature reviewed above. First, the evidence for FACT is promising, but clearly more research is needed. Second, the target population for FACT is unclear. Third, FACT is being widely disseminated despite its lack of evidence and lack of a clearly defined target population. ACT is neither appropriate nor cost-effective for all persons with severe mental illness, so it is likely that FACT is neither appropriate nor costeffective for all persons with severe mental illness who are involved with the criminal justice system. However, eligibility criteria for determining who should receive FACT have not been established. Developing these criteria is an initial and critical step toward growing the evidence base for