Loading…

Compulsory psychiatric treatment checklist: Instrument development and clinical application

Instruments designed to evaluate the necessity of compulsory psychiatric treatment (CPT) are scarce to non-existent. We developed a 25-item Checklist (scoring 0 to 50) with four clusters (Legal, Danger, Historic and Cognitive), based on variables identified as relevant to compulsory treatment. The C...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of law and psychiatry 2017-09, Vol.54, p.36-45
Main Authors: Brissos, Sofia, Vicente, Filipe, Oliveira, João Miguel, Sobreira, Gonçalo Santos, Gameiro, Zita, Moreira, Cátia Alves, Pinto da Costa, Mariana, Queirós, Marta, Mendes, Eva, Renca, Susana, Prata-Ribeiro, Henrique, Hoffmann, Maurício Scopel, Vieira, Fernando
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Instruments designed to evaluate the necessity of compulsory psychiatric treatment (CPT) are scarce to non-existent. We developed a 25-item Checklist (scoring 0 to 50) with four clusters (Legal, Danger, Historic and Cognitive), based on variables identified as relevant to compulsory treatment. The Compulsory Treatment Checklist (CTC) was filled with information on case (n=324) and control (n=251) subjects, evaluated under the Portuguese Mental Health Act (Law 36/98), in three hospitals. For internal validation, we used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), testing unidimensional and bifactor models. Multilevel logistic regression model (MLL) was used to predict the odds ratio (OR) for compulsory treatment based on the total scale score. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis (ROC) was performed to predict compulsory treatment. CFA revealed the best fit indexes for the bifactor model, with all items loading on one General factor and the residual loading in the a priori predicted four specific factors. Reliability indexes were high for the General factor (88.4%), and low for specific factors (
ISSN:0160-2527
1873-6386
DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.07.004