Yield and efficiency of mental health screening: A comparison of screening protocols at intake to prison

19Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The value of screening for mental illness has increasingly been questioned in low prevalence settings due to high false positive rates. However, since false positive rates are related to prevalence, screening may be more effective in higher prevalence settings, including correctional institutions. We compared the yield (i.e. newly detected cases) and efficiency (i.e. false positives) of five screening protocols to detect mental illness in prisons against the use of mental health history taking (the prior approach to detecting mental illness). Methods and Findings: We estimated the accuracy of the six approaches to detect an Axis I disorder among a sample of 467 newly admitted male inmates (83.1% participation rate). Mental health history taking identified only 41.0% (95% CI 32.1, 50.6) of all inmates with mental illness. Screening protocols identified between 61.9 and 85.7% of all cases, but referred between 2 and 3 additional individuals who did not have a mental illness for every additional case detected compared to the mental health history taking approach. In low prevalence settings (i.e. 10% or less) the screening protocols would have had between 4.6 and 16.2 false positives per true positive. Conclusions: While screening may not be practical in low prevalence settings, it may be beneficial in jails and prisons where the prevalence of mental illness is higher. Further consideration of the context in which screening is being implemented, and of the impacts of policies and clinical practices on the benefits and harms of screening is needed to determine the effectiveness of screening in these settings.

Figures

  • Fig 1. Screening process and participant flow diagram.
  • Table 1. Accuracy (95%CI) of 6 approaches to detect mental illness.
  • Table 2. Number of extra false positives per true positive for varying levels of prevalence and prior detection rates.
  • Fig 2. Relationship between prevalence, prior detection rate and potential impact of screening.

References Powered by Scopus

Quadas-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

10125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The World Health Organization adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general population

2335Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Association between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of first-episode patients: A systematic review

1300Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Digital mental health challenges and the horizon ahead for solutions

70Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Two-year prevalence rates of mental health and substance use disorder diagnoses among repeat arrestees

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Intellectual disability in Irish prisoners: systematic review of prevalence

25Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Martin, M. S., Potter, B. K., Crocker, A. G., Wells, G. A., & Colman, I. (2016). Yield and efficiency of mental health screening: A comparison of screening protocols at intake to prison. PLoS ONE, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154106

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 25

54%

Researcher 11

24%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 27

52%

Medicine and Dentistry 13

25%

Social Sciences 7

13%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

10%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 13

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0