Socioeconomic disadvantage and schizophrenia in migrants under mental health detention orders

Offenders and non-offenders with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: Do they really differ in known risk factors for aggression?

Introduction

Individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) have an elevated risk for aggressive behavior, and several factors contributing to this risk have been identified, e. g. comorbid substance use disorders. From this knowledge, it could be inferred that offender patients show a higher expression of said risk factors than non-offender patients. Yet, there is a lack of comparative studies between those two groups, and findings gathered from one of the two are not directly applicable to the other due to numerous structural differences. The aim of this study therefore was to identify key differences in offender patients and non-offender patients regarding aggressive behavior through application of supervised machine learning, and to quantify the performance of the model.

Methods

For this purpose, we applied seven different (ML) algorithms on a dataset comprising 370 offender patients and a comparison group of 370 non-offender patients, both with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

Results

With a balanced accuracy of 79.9%, an AUC of 0.87, a sensitivity of 77.3% and a specificity of 82.5%, gradient boosting emerged as best performing model and was able to correctly identify offender patients in over 4/5 the cases. Out of 69 possible predictor variables, the following emerged as the ones with the most indicative power in distinguishing between the two groups: olanzapine equivalent dose at the time of discharge from the referenced hospitalization, failures during temporary leave, being born outside of Switzerland, lack of compulsory school graduation, out- and inpatient treatment(s) prior to the referenced hospitalization, physical or neurological illness as well as medication compliance.

Discussion

Interestingly, both factors related to psychopathology and to the frequency and expression of aggression itself did not yield a high indicative power in the interplay of variables, thus suggesting that while they individually contribute to aggression as a negative outcome, they are compensable through certain interventions. The findings contribute to our understanding of differences between offenders and non-offenders with SSD, showing that previously described risk factors of aggression may be counteracted through sufficient treatment and integration in the mental health care system.

Metabolic polygenic risk scores effect on antipsychotic-induced metabolic dysregulation: A longitudinal study in a first episode psychosis cohort

OBJECTIVE

Metabolic syndrome is a health-threatening condition suffered by approximately one third of schizophrenia patients and largely attributed to antipsychotic medication. Previous evidence reports a common genetic background of psychotic and metabolic disorders. In this study, we aimed to assess the role of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) on the progression of the metabolic profile in a first-episode psychosis (FEP) cohort.

METHOD

Of the 231 FEP individuals included in the study, 192-220 participants were included in basal analysis and 118-179 in longitudinal 6-month models. Eleven psychopathologic and metabolic PRSs were constructed. Basal and longitudinal PRSs association with metabolic measurements was assessed by statistical analyses.

RESULTS

No major association of psychopathological PRSs with the metabolic progression was found. However, high risk individuals for depression and cholesterol-related PRSs reported a higher increase of cholesterol levels during the follow-up (FDR ≤ 0.023 for all analyses). Their effect was comparable to other well-established pharmacological and environmental risk factors (explaining at least 1.2% of total variance).

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide new evidence of the effects of metabolic genetic risk on the development of metabolic dysregulation. The future establishment of genetic profiling tools in clinical procedures could enable practitioners to better personalize antipsychotic treatment selection and dosage.

Autism Spectrum and Other Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Children of Immigrants: A Brief Review of Current Evidence and Implications for Clinical Practice

Children of immigrants may have higher neurodevelopmental risks than those of non-immigrant populations. Yet, some evidence suggests that this group may receive late diagnosis, and therefore miss beneficial early interventions. Clinicians may misattribute symptoms of disorders to other social, behavioral or language problems. Likewise, there might be cultural differences in parents' likelihood of perceiving or reporting first developmental concerns to clinicians. Population-based standardized screening may play an important role in addressing ethnic inequalities in the age at diagnosis, although further research focusing on cross-cultural use is necessary. Once children are diagnosed, clinicians may rely on culturally sensitive procedures (translation services, cultural mediators) to increase the accessibility of interventions and improve adherence among immigrant families. In this brief review, we provide an overview about what is currently known about the epidemiology and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders, paying special attention to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), in children of immigrants and suggest the necessity of population-based screening and culturally sensitive care.

Exploring Similarities and Differences of Non-European Migrants among Forensic Patients with Schizophrenia

Migrants diagnosed with schizophrenia are overrepresented in forensic-psychiatric clinics. A comprehensive characterization of this offender subgroup remains to be conducted. The present exploratory study aims at closing this research gap. In a sample of 370 inpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were detained in a Swiss forensic-psychiatric clinic, 653 different variables were analyzed to identify possible differences between native Europeans and non-European migrants. The exploratory data analysis was conducted by means of supervised machine learning. In order to minimize the multiple testing problem, the detected group differences were cross-validated by applying six different machine learning algorithms on the data set. Subsequently, the variables identified as most influential were used for machine learning algorithm building and evaluation. The combination of two childhood-related factors and three therapy-related factors allowed to differentiate native Europeans and non-European migrants with an accuracy of 74.5% and a predictive power of AUC = 0.75 (area under the curve). The AUC could not be enhanced by any of the investigated criminal history factors or psychiatric history factors. Overall, it was found that the migrant subgroup was quite similar to the rest of offender patients with schizophrenia, which may help to reduce the stigmatization of migrants in forensic-psychiatric clinics. Some of the predictor variables identified may serve as starting points for studies aimed at developing crime prevention approaches in the community setting and risk management strategies tailored to subgroups of offenders with schizophrenia.

Rising inpatient numbers in forensic security hospitals of German federal state of Baden-Württemberg: Background and explanatory approaches

In this article, we describe critical epidemiological trends in forensic psychiatric care in the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg. For some years, there has been a marked increase in the number of patients with psychoses and with a migration background in the high-security hospitals of Baden-Württemberg. We present a number of studies exploring hypotheses as to why this is the case. Taking into account a set of person-related and non-person (forensic system)-related variables, we suggest that rising treatment figures may be understood in terms of system variables rather than individual patient characteristics. Findings regarding predictors of treatment length and legal outcome, as well as characteristics of migrant patients and patients assigned to forensic aftercare, are discussed.

Freedom Restrictive Coercive Measures in Forensic Psychiatry

Background: In Germany, people suffering from severe mental illness who have committed serious offenses and have considerably reduced or suspended criminal responsibility can be detained and treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, all psychiatric hospitals including forensic psychiatric hospitals are obliged to record data on every coercive intervention and to submit them to a central registry. The objective of this study was to determine key measures for the use of seclusion and restraint and to compare them with data from the same registry on the use of coercion in general inpatient mental health care. Methods: Data on the main psychiatric diagnosis according to ICD-10, type and duration of each coercive measure and number of treated cases according to diagnoses, and cumulated number of days of treatment from all 8 forensic facilities in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg covering a catchment area with about 11 million inhabitants were collected at the treated-case-level for 3 years. Results: 22.6% of the cases treated in 2017 in forensic psychiatric hospitals were subjected to seclusion, and 3.8% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration of seclusion episodes per affected case was 343.9 h and the mean cumulated duration of restraint episodes was 261.7 h. 13.2% of the treated cases were subjected to room confinement with a mean cumulated duration of 539.1 h per affected case. Involuntary medication was applied in 1.9% of the cases. In general psychiatry, 2.9% of the treated cases were subjected to seclusion, and 4.7% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration per affected case amounted to 32.2 h for seclusion episodes and to 37.6 h for restraint episodes. Involuntary medication was applied in 0.6% of cases. Conclusion: Compared to general psychiatry, mechanical restraint is used in forensic psychiatry substantially less frequently and seclusion substantially more frequently. Room confinement is used only in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Use of involuntary medication is rare. On the one hand, recorded involuntary medication comprises only clear actions against the patient's expressed will as defined by law. Psychological pressure to take medication to avoid other forms of coercion and to achieve higher levels of freedom within the facility is not recorded. On the other hand, the low numbers of clear involuntary medication probably reflect the high legal threshold for such interventions, and, consequently, efforts by staff to motivate voluntary acceptance. The long duration of freedom-restricting coercive measures in forensic psychiatry probably reflects the selection of patients at high risk of violence.