BMC psychiatry · 2026
Factors associated with rearrest by police among people suspected of an offence and referred for psychiatric assessment: a comparison within a post-booking diversion program in Amsterdam.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zoeteman Jeroen Bastiaan, de Haas Hans Joachim, van der Post Louk, van der Pol Thimo Martijn, van der Meer Thomas, van Oudenaren Mathilde Johanna Francina, Sikkens Erik Peter Kornelis, Dekker Jack, Mulder Cornelis Lambertus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are highly prevalent among offenders. In Amsterdam, the Psychiatric Emergency Service and the Public Prosecutor's Office jointly implemented a post-booking diversion program to improve clinical outcomes and reduce recidivism among people suspected of an offence and referred for psychiatric assessment.
AIM: To identify demographic, clinical and legal factors associated with rearrest among participants in a post-booking diversion program.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 292 participants were followed for one year. Using routinely collected demographic, psychiatric, and judicial data, we applied a two-step negative binomial regression analysis to examine associations between demographic, clinical, and legal variables and the number of rearrests. First, bivariate associations between potential predictors and the number of rearrests were examined. Second, a comprehensive multivariate model was fitted including all significant predictors from step 1.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 42% of participants were rearrested. Participants with substance use disorders initially showed a higher rate of rearrest (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) = 1.92, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.17-3.15, p = .01), but diagnostic category was no longer associated with rearrest after adjustment for covariates. Independent predictors of rearrest included receiving a subpoena or arraignment (IRR = 2.70, 95% CI 1.48-4.93, p = .001), homelessness (IRR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.32-4.37, p = .004), welfare dependence (IRR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.01-2.36, p = .045), and prior-year arrests (IRR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.27, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this post-booking diversion program, social and legal vulnerabilities-rather than psychiatric diagnosis-were associated with rearrests. Addressing homelessness, economic instability, and prior justice involvement may be more effective in reducing recidivism than interventions focusing solely on mental health treatment. Broader diversion strategies integrating social support and housing in itiatives are warranted.
AIM: To identify demographic, clinical and legal factors associated with rearrest among participants in a post-booking diversion program.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 292 participants were followed for one year. Using routinely collected demographic, psychiatric, and judicial data, we applied a two-step negative binomial regression analysis to examine associations between demographic, clinical, and legal variables and the number of rearrests. First, bivariate associations between potential predictors and the number of rearrests were examined. Second, a comprehensive multivariate model was fitted including all significant predictors from step 1.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 42% of participants were rearrested. Participants with substance use disorders initially showed a higher rate of rearrest (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) = 1.92, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.17-3.15, p = .01), but diagnostic category was no longer associated with rearrest after adjustment for covariates. Independent predictors of rearrest included receiving a subpoena or arraignment (IRR = 2.70, 95% CI 1.48-4.93, p = .001), homelessness (IRR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.32-4.37, p = .004), welfare dependence (IRR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.01-2.36, p = .045), and prior-year arrests (IRR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.27, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this post-booking diversion program, social and legal vulnerabilities-rather than psychiatric diagnosis-were associated with rearrests. Addressing homelessness, economic instability, and prior justice involvement may be more effective in reducing recidivism than interventions focusing solely on mental health treatment. Broader diversion strategies integrating social support and housing in itiatives are warranted.