Predictors of competitive employment in individuals with severe mental illness: results from an observational, cross-sectional study in Germany

Taking what you get or Getting what you Need: A Qualitative Study on Experiences with Mental Health and Welfare Services in Long-Term Recovery in First-Episode Psychosis

How people in long-term recovery (clinical and personal) in first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia and bipolar spectrum disorders) experience the mental health and welfare services they interact with is not frequently studied but has significant implications. We therefore aimed to explore which aspects of these services people with FEP evaluate as important for their long-term recovery. Twenty participants in clinical and/or personal recovery from two Norwegian long-term follow-up studies after FEP (TOP 10-year and TIPS 20-year) were sampled for this interview-based qualitative study. The research-team included service user experience. A deductive analysis based on personal accounts of recovery generated five service aspects. Few specific types of interventions were reported to promote recovery although medications, psychotherapy and employment support were mentioned. Participants valued services based in collaboration and that focused on their resources rather than limitations. The importance of long-term follow-up with a consistent aim was highlighted, as was the inclusion of caregivers and peers. Welfare services contributed to recovery by supporting basic needs and safety, but some experienced social exclusion when not participating in the labor market. This study is unique in exploring the role of services, including welfare, in long-term FEP recovery from service user perspectives. Participants evaluated that services played a more indirect role in long-term recovery by supporting their personal resources, although what they needed from services had frequently not been offered. Their expertise by experience contributes valuable knowledge. Better service coordination and consistent implementation of this knowledge are crucial to support recovery in FEP.

Influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders: A forensic case analysis between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

In China, police departments usually initiate assessment of criminal responsibility after patients with mental disorders commit crimes. However, the specific conditions demanding assessment are not clearly stipulated by law. Few studies have been conducted on the epidemiological characteristics and assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders. This study aimed to analyze the features and identify influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility for patients with mental disorders in a single-center cohort.

METHODS

Cases undergoing criminal responsibility assessment at the Center of Forensic Science, East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai (CFS, ECUPL) between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Criminal responsibility was categorized as criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility. Differences among the groups were then statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

In the study period, 437 patients including 361 males (82.61%) were referred for criminal responsibility assessment. Their ages ranged from 15 years to 91 years. After assessment, the number of cases with criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility were 196 (44.85%), 181 (41.42%), and 60 (13.73%), respectively. The Chi-square test and nominal regression analysis showed that influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility comprised crime in public places (OR = 14.734; 95% CI: 1.463-148.424), crime in victim's residence (OR = 10.852; 95% CI: 1.068-110.214), crime in suspect's residence (OR = 9.542; 95% CI: 1.046-87.092), forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X (OR = 0.014,0.011; 95%CI:0.001-0.261,0-0.5), F2X (OR = 5.75; 95%CI:1.315-23.145), F4X (OR = 0.077; 95%CI:0.016-0.38,) and F6X (OR = 0.112,0.075; 95% CI: 0.022-0.558,0.006-0.959), criminal object of property (OR = 9.989; 95% CI: 1.305-76.455), cases of theft (OR = 0.09, 0.087; 95% CI: 0.013-0.648,0.012-0.654), and cases of endangering public security (OR = 0.152, 0.205; 95% CI: 0.034-0.678, 0.045-0.931).

CONCLUSION

Crime in public places, suspect's residence and victim's residence, forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X, F2X, F4X and F6X, criminal object of property, case types of theft and endangering public security were influencing factors in assessment of criminal responsibility. Therefore, special attention should be paid to patients with mental disorders under such circumstances in order to avoid bias on assessment of criminal responsibility.