Forensic mental health professionals' perceptions of their dual loyalty conflict: findings from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Mental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient's well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Clear practical guidelines to support these MHPs' decision-making are lacking, amongst others, due to the ethical conflicts within this field. This qualitative interview study contributes to the much-needed empirical research on how MHPs resolve these ethical conflicts in daily clinical practice. METHODS: 31 MHPs working in court-mandated treatment settings were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and our in-depth analysis followed the thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We first outline how mental health professionals perceive their dual loyalty conflict and how they describe their affiliations with the medical and the justice system. Our findings indicate that this positioning was influenced by situational factors, drawing the MHPs at times closer to the caring or controlling poles. Second, our results illustrate how participating MHPs solve their dual loyalty conflict. Participants considered central to motivate the patient, to see the benefits of treatment and its goals. Further, transparent communication with patients and representatives of the justice system was highlighted as key to develop a trustful relationship with the patient and to manage the influences from the different players involved. CONCLUSIONS: Even though individual positioning and opinions towards dealing with the influences of the justice system varied, the results of our research show that, in spite of varying positions, the underlying practice is not very different across participating MHPs. Several techniques that allow developing a high-quality therapeutic alliance with the patient are key elements of general psychotherapy. Transparency appears as the crucial factor when communicating with the patient and with representatives of the justice system. More specifically, patients need to be informed since the beginning of therapy about the limits of medical confidentiality. It is also recommended to develop guidelines that define the level of detailed information that should be disclosed when communicating with the authorities of the justice system.

Against All Odds, Femicide Did Not Increase During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Six Spanish-Speaking Countries.

This paper tests a situational hypothesis which postulates that the number of femicides should increase as an unintended consequence of the COVID-19-related lockdowns. The monthly data on femicides from 2017 to 2020 collected in six Spanish-speaking countries-Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Panama, Mexico, and Spain-and analyzed using threshold models indicate that the hypothesis must be rejected. The total number of femicides in 2020 was similar to that recorded during each of the three previous years, and femicides did not peak during the months of the strictest lockdowns. In fact, their monthly distribution in 2020 did not differ from the seasonal distribution of femicides in any former year. The discussion criticizes the current state of research on femicide and its inability to inspire effective criminal polices. It also proposes three lines of intervention. The latter are based on a holistic approach that places femicide in the context of crimes against persons, incorporates biology and neuroscience approaches, and expands the current cultural explanations of femicide.

Aging Prisoners in Switzerland: An analysis of Their Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed health care utilization of aging prisoners and compared it with that of younger prisoners. METHOD: Health care utilization comprised visits to general practitioners (GPs), nurses, and mental health professionals (MHPs) for a period of 6 months. Using retrospective study design, data were extracted from medical records of 190 older prisoners (50 years and older) and 190 younger inmates (18-49 years). Age group was a dichotomous predictor variable with type of sentencing and time spent in prison as covariates. Descriptive statistics and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were performed. RESULTS: For each of the three outcome variables, two GLMMs were constructed. The first model only included age group as the predictor variable (3 × Unadjusted models). The second included the two covariates in addition to the predictor variable (3 × Adjusted model). Results from the adjusted model indicate that visits to GPs significantly differed between the two age groups (p = .022). Older prisoners visited GPs 1.43 times more often than younger prisoners over the 6-month period (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.05, 1.94]). The finding for visits to nurses was not statistically significant (p = .080). However, older prisoners visited nurses 1.36 times more frequently (adjusted RR = 1.36, 95% CI = [0.96, 1.91]). Finally, older prisoners visited MHPs 1.24 times more often than younger prisoners (adjusted RR = 1.24, 95% CI = [.95, 1.61]) and this finding was also not statistically significant (p = .11). DISCUSSION: Study findings underline that older prisoners utilized health care more often than younger prisoners although in most models the finding did not reach statistical significance. The prison system must develop solutions to address the needs of an aging population, particularly those with physical and mental health problems.