Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Active, Not Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06854133

Factors of Effectiveness in Italian Forensic Treatment

Over recent years, in Italy, the treatment of mentally ill offenders has undergone profound changes following successive legislative interventions, culminating in Law no. 81/2014, which closed all high-security psychiatric hospitals (OPG) and established a community-based forensic care model managed exclusively by the National Health Service. This model, centred on REMS and territorial mental health services, is unique in the Western context and emphasises rehabilitation, recovery, and time-limited custodial measures.

In California, forensic treatment is regulated by the California Penal Code and delivered mainly within high-security state hospitals coordinated by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), with long average lengths of stay and strong standardisation of security procedures. The two systems therefore differ markedly in structure, duration of stay, and balance between security and rehabilitative goals, raising questions about their respective effectiveness in terms of clinical outcomes, functional recovery, and violent recidivism.

This multicentre, prospective cohort study compares Italian forensic patients (Group I) and Californian forensic patients (Group C), enrolled at first entry into forensic care and followed longitudinally for three years with assessments at T0, T1, T2, and T3 using harmonised tools (BPRS 4.0, WHODAS 2.0, HCR-20 V3, SAPROF, DUNDRUM Toolkit, MOAS) and a common data collection form. Primary aims include a detailed epidemiological characterisation of the Italian forensic population and a systematic comparison of outcomes between the Italian and Californian models with respect to violent recidivism, length of stay in forensic settings, clinical and functional improvement, and recovery indicators.

Comparative analyses focus on subgroups of participants with psychotic disorders and mental disorders directly related to the index offence, in order to examine differences in outcomes attributable to systemic and organisational features of the two forensic treatment models rather than to diagnostic or criminological heterogeneity.

Active, Not Recruiting

This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.

Key information

About this study

This longitudinal, multicentre, non-randomized cohort study compares outcomes for mentally ill offenders entering Italian and Californian forensic care systems for the first time. The Italian cohort (Group I) comprises individuals subject to custodial security measures in REMS and to non-custodial security measures (for example supervised liberty and dedicated community residential facilities), managed by Departments of Mental Health in residential, semi-residential, and community-based settings. The Californian cohort (Group C) comprises patients admitted to secure state hospitals or community forensic facilities under incompetency to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) provisions of the California Penal Code.

The observation period extends over three years from baseline (T0), with follow-up assessments at 12 months (T1), 24 months (T2), and 36 months (T3), or at discharge from the forensic system if discharge occurs earlier. At T0, data collection includes a structured form covering sociodemographic characteristics, clinical history, substance use, previous psychiatric admissions, self-harm and hetero-aggressive behaviour, current and past pharmacological treatment, and judicial information such as type of offence, duration and type of security measure, previous convictions, and prior detention periods. Baseline assessment also includes BPRS 4.0 for psychiatric symptom severity, WHODAS 2.0 for global functioning, HCR-20 V3 for violence risk, SAPROF for protective factors, and DUNDRUM-1, -3, and -4 for therapeutic security level, treatment programme completion, and recovery status, respectively.

During follow-up, the same battery (BPRS 4.0, WHODAS 2.0, HCR-20 V3, SAPROF, DUNDRUM-1/3/4) is administered at T1, T2, and T3, and clinicians record sentinel events, including new offences, compulsory psychiatric hospitalisations, seclusion or restraint episodes, suicide attempts, suicides, and unauthorised absences or escapes, with violent incidents coded using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS). Time windows for each follow-up assessment are restricted (maximum approximately 2 weeks) and are applied uniformly across participating sites to minimise temporal bias in outcome measurement. At the end of the three-year observation period, or at discharge, a Clinical Global Impression - Change (CGI-C) interview is conducted with treating health professionals to capture their structured judgement regarding the quality and effectiveness of the overall treatment pathway.

Inclusion criteria

encompass adult offenders (≥18 years) with partial or total mental infirmity placed under forensic measures in Italy or admitted to forensic care in California, whereas exclusion criteria include age under 18 years, severe cognitive impairment (for example Mini-Mental State Examination score <18) preventing valid assessment, inability to provide informed consent in the absence of a legal guardian, and acute medical conditions incompatible with study procedures. Target sample size is approximately 300 participants per group, which provides adequate statistical power to detect clinically meaningful differences between systems while allowing for attrition during follow-up, although the study remains informative even with lower enrolment in line with observational research standards.

Primary outcomes include violent recidivism, length of stay in forensic settings, and changes in clinical and functional status, while secondary outcomes focus on changes in structured risk and protective factors, treatment adherence, therapeutic progress, and recovery indicators. Harmonised instruments and procedures across Italian and Californian sites allow direct comparison of trajectories, with particular attention to subgroups with psychotic disorders and mental disorders related to the index offence, in order to disentangle the impact of system-level organisational and legal features from individual clinical profiles.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

Group I - Italy:

All subjects subject to custodial security measures (e.g., REMS) or non-custodial security measures (e.g., supervised liberty, placement in dedicated forensic community residential facilities - CRAP), regardless of clinical diagnosis or type of offence committed

Both definitive and provisional security measures are included

Management contexts include residential, semi-residential, and community-based settings

Age ≥ 18 years

Group C - California:

Patients admitted to secure hospitals or community forensic facilities for incompetency to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), pursuant to the California Penal Code

Exclusion criteria

Age under 18 years

MMSE score below 18 (severe cognitive impairment preventing administration of study instruments)

Inability to provide written informed consent and absence of a legal guardian or Support Administrator available to provide substitute consent

Acute medical conditions preventing the administration of the evaluation instruments specified in the research protocol

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. Violent recidivism

    Time frame: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)

    Proportion of participants who commit at least one new violent offence against a person recorded by judicial authorities, or at least one violent behaviour qualifying, under applicable law, as reportable to authorities during the follow-up period, as documented in official judicial records (where available) and clinical records, and coded with the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS).

    The MOAS total score ranges from 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe aggressive behaviour.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in violence risk score (Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3)

    Time frame: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)

    Change in total score on the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) between T0 and T3.

    The HCR-20 V3 total score ranges from 0 to 40; higher scores indicate higher risk of violent recidivism.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Bari

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Longitudinal Study Comparing an Italian and a Californian Population of Mentally Ill Offenders: Identification of Forensic Treatment Effectiveness Factors

Acronym: REMS FEIFT

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2030
Study completion
2031
First posted
Mar 3, 2025
Registry last updated
Jun 4, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.