Passive Monitoring of Mental Health Status in the Criminal Forensic Population.

Current approaches to monitoring patients' mental status rely heavily on self-reported symptomatology, clinician observation, and self-rated symptom scales. The limitations inherent in these methodologies have implications for the accuracy of diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis. Certain populations are particularly affected by these limitations because of their unique situations, including criminal forensic patients, who have a history of both criminal behavior and mental disorder, and experience increased stigma and restrictions in their access to mental health care. This population may benefit particularly from recent developments in technology and the growing use of mobile devices and sensors to collect behavioral information via passive monitoring. These technologies offer objective parameters that correlate with mental health status and create an opportunity to use Big Data and machine learning to refine diagnosis and predict behavior in a way that represents a marked shift from current practices. This article reviews the approaches to and limitations of psychiatric assessment and contrasts this with the promise of these new technologies. It then discusses the ethics concerns associated with these technologies and explores their potential relevance to criminal forensic psychiatry and the broader implications they carry for health and criminal justice policy.

Anticipated regret in shared decision-making: a randomized experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Explicit consideration of anticipated regret is not part of the standard shared decision-making protocols. This pilot study aimed to compare decisions about a hypothetical surgery for breast cancer and examined whether regret is a consideration in treatment decisions. METHODS: In this randomized experimental study, 184 healthy female volunteers were randomized to receive a standard decision aid (control) or one with information on post-surgical regret (experimental). The main outcome measures were the proportion of subjects choosing lumpectomy vs. mastectomy and the proportion reporting that regret played a role in the decision made. We hypothesized that a greater proportion of the experimental group (regret-incorporated decision aid) would make a surgical treatment preference that favored the less regret-inducing option and that they would be more likely to consider regret in their decision-making process as compared to the control group. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of the experimental group subjects reported regret played a role in their decision-making process compared to the control counterparts (78 vs. 65 %; p = 0.039). Recipients of the regret-incorporated experimental decision aid had a threefold increased odds of choosing the less regret-inducing surgery (OR = 2.97; 95 % CI = 1.25, 7.09; p value = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In this hypothetical context, the incorporation of regret in a decision aid for preference-sensitive surgery impacted decision-making. This finding suggests that keying in on anticipated regret may be an important element of shared decision-making strategies. Our results make a strong argument for applying this design and pursuing further research in a surgical patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02563808.