Quantitative Outcomes for Shared Assessment and Management in Forensic Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic...

Despite leading models of mental health care encouraging user involvement, users in forensic mental health (FMH) report poor involvement given the difficulty in reconciling shared approaches with risk-averse and legally mandated settings. While previous research has demonstrated qualitative benefits to shared approaches in FMH and has led to a proliferation of self-rated assessment tools, there remains to quantify agreement on self-rated tools and to clarify the impact of shared approaches on care. This meta-analysis examines (1) the correlation between clinician and user ratings, (2) the predictive validity of self-ratings for violence, and (3) the effects of shared risk management on violence and restriction in FMH. Five databases were searched from inception to April 2024, selecting for adult FMH inpatients, shared risk assessment, needs assessment or violence management as interventions, and quantitative outcomes (correlation, agreement, predictive validity, and effect on violence or restriction rates). Fifteen quantitative evaluations were retained. One of three planned meta-analyses could be conducted, with seven records providing paired clinician-user t-tests. Eleven more records provided clinical recommendations on operationalizing shared approaches. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant and large paired standard difference of .95 (95% CI = [.49,1.42]) across tools, with significant differences in DUNDRUM-3, DUNDRUM-4, and CANFOR sub-models. While acknowledging between-study heterogeneity, results substantiate quantitative differences where clinicians generally rate more needs and lesser progress than users across tools, showing that self-ratings can and should be used to broach collaborative discussions on needs and progress during FMH treatment. There remains an evidence gap for quantitative benefits in care outcomes and a need to standardize agreement measures for future comparisons and clinical sub-group analyses.