Article

Journal of Correctional Health Care

2016, Vol. 22(2) 109-117
ª The Author(s) 2016
Diagnostic Error in Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Correctional Mental Health: DOI: 10.1177/1078345816634327
jcx.sagepub.com
Prevalence, Causes,
and Consequences

Michael S. Martin, MA1, Katie Hynes, BSc1,

Simon Hatcher, MD, MBBS2,
and Ian Colman, PhD1

Abstract
While they have important implications for inmates and resourcing of correctional institutions,
diagnostic errors are rarely discussed in correctional mental health research. This review seeks to
estimate the prevalence of diagnostic errors in prisons and jails and explores potential causes and
consequences. Diagnostic errors are defined as discrepancies in an inmate’s diagnostic status
depending on who is responsible for conducting the assessment and/or the methods used. It is
estimated that at least 10% to 15% of all inmates may be incorrectly classified in terms of the
presence or absence of a mental illness. Inmate characteristics, relationships with staff, and cognitive
errors stemming from the use of heuristics when faced with time constraints are discussed as
possible sources of error. A policy example of screening for mental illness at intake to prison is used
to illustrate when the risk of diagnostic error might be increased and to explore strategies to
mitigate this risk.

Keywords
mental illness, diagnostic error, misclassification, prisons, jails, inmates

Introduction
Mental health services and research in correctional institutions have grown tremendously in recent
decades, as there has been a growing recognition of mental health needs of inmates (Brink, Doherty,
& Boer, 2001; Brugha et al., 2005; Ditton, 1999; Fazel & Seewald, 2012; Steadman, Osher, Clark
Robbins, Case, & Samuels, 2009), and in many cases recommendations or legal obligations to meet
these needs (Powitzky, 2011). Given that screening and assessment are the entry point to services,

1
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2
Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Michael S. Martin, MA, School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth
Road, Room 3230A, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8M5.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
110 Journal of Correctional Health Care 22(2)

they are among the most essential aspects of a correctional mental health system (Livingston, 2009).
Effective detection of mental illness in correctional institutions followed by appropriate interven-
tions can lead to improved mental health and criminal justice outcomes (Martin, Dorken, Wamboldt,
& Wootten, 2012; Morgan et al., 2012). However, defining and diagnosing mental illness is not a
simple task. While the reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis have been debated over
decades, the recent release of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition
(DSM-5) and ongoing revisions to the International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision (ICD-
11) have reinvigorated debate about the classification of mental illness (e.g., First & Wakefield,
2010; Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002; Paris, 2013; Paris & Phillips, 2012; Phillips et al., 2012a,
2012b; Saxena, Esparza, Regier, Saraceno, & Sartorious, 2012; Stein et al., 2010). Despite the high
prevalence of mental illness in correctional settings, there remains a dearth of research regarding the
reliability and validity of classification systems such as DSM among prison populations. Due to the
differences in the environment itself, and in the characteristics of the prison population, there may be
factors associated with diagnostic error that are either magnified in a prison environment or unique
to this setting.
Underdiagnosis (and undertreatment) of mental illness has received the greatest attention, given
that delays in treatment (or a lack of treatment altogether) are associated with a worse prognosis
(Kisely, Scott, Denney, & Simon, 2006; Marshall et al., 2005). However, there are also important
consequences of overdiagnosis, which has been the focus of much of the criticism of revisions to
diagnostic classification. Somewhat paradoxically, concerns about overdiagnosis highlight the risk
of undertreatment of those who have the greatest need for psychiatric services. Others (Frances,
2014; Paris, 2013) have argued that the expansion of diagnostic criteria has reduced stigma for more
mild psychiatric conditions, while further increasing stigma toward the smaller group of individuals
with the most severe mental illnesses. These arguments appear to be reflected in findings that
individuals with mild to moderate symptom severity receive disproportionately more services in
community settings than those with severe mental illness (Alegrı́a et al., 2001; Katz et al., 1997).
This review addresses three questions related to diagnostic errors of inmates’ mental health: (1)
how common are they? (2) what inmate, staff, and environmental characteristics contribute to the
risk of diagnostic errors? and (3) what policies and research might increase the understanding of
these errors and reduce the risk of them occurring and/or mitigate their consequences? We adopt a
person-centered approach to this discussion and define a diagnostic error as any inmate whose
diagnostic classification varies depending on the method of arriving at this classification. In this
definition, we include both actual discrepancies in diagnosis in instances where multiple assess-
ments are conducted and discrepancies that would arise if multiple assessments were conducted.
While disagreement between assessments suggests that at least one diagnosis is inaccurate, agree-
ment between them does not guarantee a correct diagnosis. Therefore, our approach is likely to
underestimate the rate of diagnostic errors.

Prevalence of Diagnostic Errors Related to Mental Illness

We were unable to identify studies that explicitly examined the prevalence of diagnostic error in
correctional institutions. However, one study in French prisons found that approximately 7% to 10%
of inmates were diagnosed with a mental illness by one psychiatrist but not the second (Falissard
et al., 2006). Thus, for every 1,000 admissions to prison, between 70 and 100 inmates’ mental health
status could be misdiagnosed depending on which clinician conducts their assessment. This may in
fact be an underestimate of diagnostic errors, as the clinicians in this study were both present in the
same interview and thus were working with the same information to arrive at their diagnosis. Other
factors—such as therapeutic alliance and dishonest responding from participants, which clinicians
believe contribute to poor reliability of psychiatric diagnosis (Aboraya, 2007)—result in worse

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
Martin et al. 111

agreement if assessments are done independently. Furthermore, as mental health is often assessed at
intake to prison, which is a highly stressful time, diagnostic errors may also occur if the assessor fails
to distinguish psychiatric symptoms from normal reactions to stressors (Horowitz & Wakefield,
2007, 2012). Finally, this study may provide an underestimate since clinician agreement as to
whether a diagnosis is present does not indicate that this determination is, in fact, accurate.
Diagnostic error may also stem from the fact that nonmental health professionals, and in partic-
ular correctional officers, play an important role in detecting mental illness in jails and prisons. Brief
screening tools that can be administered by correctional officers have been developed to improve
identification of mental illness (Ford, Trestman, Wiesbrock, & Zhang, 2007; Grubin, Carson, &
Parsons, 2002; Steadman, Scott, Osher, Agnese, & Robbins, 2005). However, these tools detect at
most 75% of inmates with mental illness and refer approximately 25% of those who do not have an
illness (Martin, Colman, Simpson, & McKenzie, 2013). While some of these errors at the screening
stage may be corrected by staff (e.g., identification of mental health needs through observation or
self-referral, and clinicians terminating services upon further assessment of false positive screens), at
least a portion of the 25% of misclassified inmates will likely retain an incorrect diagnostic status.
For example, some screening tools that were developed were subsequently discouraged for use (e.g.,
the Referral Decision Scale; Veysey, Steadman, Morrissey, Johnsen, & Beckstead, 1998) because
they were being interpreted as diagnostic rather than screening tools. Based on the data in commu-
nity samples that individuals with no or low needs receive disproportionately high levels of care
(Alegrı́a et al., 2001; Katz et al., 1997), it is likely that some inmates who do not meet diagnostic
criteria for mental illness may be diagnosed following a positive screening result. Similarly, many
inmates who are missed by screening may retain this undiagnosed label. Even if staff identify and
correct errors for half of the inmates who are misclassified by screening, approximately 10% to 15%
of all inmates would retain an incorrect diagnostic status.

Potential Factors Associated With Diagnostic Errors

Factors associated with diagnostic errors in mental health have not been systematically explored.
Nath and Marcus (2006) outline a conceptual model that groups causes of diagnostic errors into
patient, clinician, and system factors. The inclusion of interactions between patients and clinician
(e.g., communication errors), patients and the system (e.g., navigation errors), and clinicians and the
system (e.g., time constraints, caseloads) in this model highlights that errors often involve multiple
levels (Nath & Marcus, 2006).
Factors involving patients may include both malingering of psychiatric symptoms (Guy, 2004;
McDermott & Sokolov, 2009) and an unwillingness or inability to disclose symptoms (Morgan,
Steffan, Shaw, & Wilson, 2007; Way, Kaufman, Knoll, & Chlebowski, 2013). The process of
adapting to correctional environments and adherence to the ‘‘inmate code’’ (e.g., trust nobody, serve
your time quietly) may increase behaviors that work against disclosure of mental health symptoms
and development of positive working relationships with clinicians (Carr et al., 2006; Rotter,
McQuistion, Broner, & Steinbacher, 2005). Inmates report a number of reasons for choosing not
to disclose mental health symptoms, including avoiding looking weak for fear of victimization, a
lack of access to services, negative prior experiences with service providers, and a sense of self-
reliance (Morgan et al., 2007). Inmates may also deny symptoms such as suicide ideation, poten-
tially as a reflection of their preferences against available treatment options (e.g., observation cells;
Way et al., 2013). Common inmate characteristics may also increase the risk of underdiagnosis. For
example, histories of trauma are highly common among inmate populations (Dutton & Hart, 1992;
Maschi, Gibson, Zgoba, & Morgen, 2011; Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007). Individuals
with traumatic histories may be more likely to present with physical health complaints with an
ill-defined pathology, which may reflect unrecognized mental illness or psychological distress

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
112 Journal of Correctional Health Care 22(2)

(Katon, Sullivan, & Walker, 2001). If misdiagnosed as a physical rather than mental health issue,
this may lead to inappropriate treatments.
At the clinician level, errors may stem from the use of heuristics by clinicians in situations where
time or information are limited, the processes through which screening and assessment are con-
ducted, interview style and training, and the availability of collateral information from previous
treatment providers, family, and other sources close to the individual (Aboraya, 2007; Croskerry,
2003; Crumlish & Kelly, 2009). Cognitive errors associated with the inappropriate use of heuristics,
such as anchoring, confirmation bias, diagnosis momentum, and commission bias (Croskerry, 2003;
Crumlish & Kelly, 2009), may be especially prevalent in correctional settings where large numbers
of inmates may need to be assessed, often in short time periods. To illustrate these errors, we adapt
an example given by Crumlish and Kelly (2009) to the correctional setting. An inmate is started on
an antipsychotic at intake based on either a perceived need to take at least some action despite an
unclear psychopathology (i.e., commission bias) or a provisional diagnosis of psychosis. As the
inmate serves his or her sentence, this diagnosis may persist without further assessment to confirm a
diagnosis of psychosis (i.e., diagnosis momentum). The persisting diagnosis may stem from anchor-
ing (e.g., following the inmate’s transfer from an intake institution to a regular institution, a pro-
fessional might be unwilling to adjust a diagnosis made by a colleague) or confirmation bias (e.g.,
improvement in symptoms and behavior are attributed to the antipsychotic medication effectively
managing symptoms rather than other possible explanations, such as prior symptoms simply reflect-
ing adjustment to prison or the improvement reflecting regression to the mean on assessment
instruments; Lilienfeld, Ritschel, Lynn, Cautin, & Latzman, 2014).
System-level factors may include policies that fail to account for situational stressors or the
relationship between the assessor and the inmate. Admission to jail or prison is a highly stressful
time, yet screening and assessment often occur at this time. Thus, the potential for overdiagnosis
may be especially high. While there are few studies exploring changes in mental health symp-
toms during the period of incarceration, for many inmates depressive and anxiety symptoms
appear to decrease during the initial weeks of incarceration (Hassan et al., 2011; Taylor, Walker,
& Dunn, 2010). Conversely, Hart and colleagues (Hart, Roesch, Corrado, & Cox, 1993) note that
inmates may refuse to disclose information to correctional officers if they fail to build rapport
and engage inmates in the process and that correctional officers reported struggling with chang-
ing roles between a security role and a ‘‘service-delivery’’ role. Given the important role of
correctional officers in identifying inmates with mental illness, these challenges may be impor-
tant contributing factors to misdiagnosis of inmates’ mental health needs. These challenges are
reflected in findings from Steadman and colleagues, where 26 of 33 inmates who obtained false
negative screening results reported different information to the correctional officer conducting
screening and the research assistant administering a structured clinical interview (the SCID;
Steadman et al., 2005).

Consequences of Diagnostic Error

Interest in diagnostic error is motivated primarily by the extent to which these errors entail negative
consequences. Intuitively, not all errors are equally severe. For example, an untreated inmate
experiencing chronic psychotic symptoms that cause significant impairments in functioning might
be expected to have a worse prognosis than an untreated inmate experiencing depressive or anxious
symptoms as he or she adjusts to a prison environment and the loss of contact with community
supports (even though both may benefit from treatment; Kisely et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2005).
Thus, longer term follow-up of inmates for whom there are diagnostic errors (e.g., those who are
identified as ill who are not receiving treatment) is needed to evaluate the extent to which their
outcomes are affected by these errors. Understanding these impacts of diagnostic errors could help

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
Martin et al. 113

determine the maximum delay possible to gather additional information in support of more accurate
diagnosis (Ely, Graber, & Croskerry, 2011) without missing opportunities to improve mental health,
to prevent behavioral issues, and to inform important decisions such as security classifications.
Potential benefits of early intervention, however, must be balanced against consequences of psy-
chiatric treatment—and in particular psychiatric treatment for those who in fact do not require it. For
example, treatment of mental illness with medication comes with the risk of adverse events (Hamp-
ton, Daubresse, Chang, Alexander, & Budnitz, 2014). Given high rates of substance misuse, there
are also concerns in correctional facilities about medication misuse and diversion to other inmates
(e.g., selling or being victimized for medications; Gollapudi, 2011). Finally, mental illness remains
stigmatized in the general population (Angermeyer, Matschinger, Carta, & Schomerus, 2014;
Angermeyer, Matschinger, & Schomerus, 2013; Reavley & Jorm, 2014; Schomerus et al., 2012)
and among inmates (Edwards, 2000). This stigma may contribute to higher victimization among
those who are labeled as mentally ill (Blitz, Wolff, & Shi, 2008; Wolff, Blitz, & Shi, 2007). Stigma
may also be reflected in parole boards being less likely to release inmates with mental illness and
having lower thresholds for revoking conditional releases (Prins & Draper, 2009; Skeem, Manchak,
& Peterson, 2011). Reducing overdiagnosis is important to ensure that inmates without mental
illness are not inappropriately labeled, victimized, and/or stigmatized, without benefiting from the
treatment to counterbalance these side effects.

Future Directions to Understand and Mitigate the Impacts of

Misclassification
Given the lack of studies examining diagnostic errors among inmates, it is unknown how often
diagnostic errors translate into worse outcomes for inmates and/or when they may lead to inefficient
use of resources. Based on the above discussion, at least three areas warrant further consideration:
(1) to estimate the prevalence of diagnostic errors in correctional institutions, (2) to investigate
outcomes for those inmates for whom diagnostic errors occur, and (3) to review existing guidelines
and policies to ensure that they are designed in such a way to minimize the risk of diagnostic errors
and to mitigate their consequences for inmates whose diagnostic status is incorrect. It may also be
possible to mitigate budgetary impacts of diagnostic errors for correctional systems through the
provision of better mental health care to prevent behavioral issues and reduce adverse side effects of
medications for those who do not require them.
As it is challenging to define mental illness in the absence of biological and/or genetic markers of
illness, we adopted a pragmatic approach of estimating the proportion of inmates for whom different
assessors or methods of assessment give different results. Identifying characteristics of inmates,
situations, or environments that give rise to these disagreements could inform policies and practice.
The following example may illustrate how an increased understanding of diagnostic error could
improve services in prisons. Given the potential for misclassification of mental illness at intake to
prison, it may be more effective to restrict screening and diagnosis at intake to the most urgent needs
(e.g., suicide risk, monitoring psychiatric medication use). Screening for these more urgent needs
may be more accurate than for more common disorders such as depression (Evans, Brinded, Simp-
son, Frampton, & Mulder, 2010). Screening and diagnosis of more common mental illness might be
more accurate if done following an initial period for inmates to adjust to the routines of the
institution, although this question has not been explored. Symptoms present at intake may naturally
remit for some inmates (Hassan et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2010), and staff may have opportunities to
interact with inmates and collect other information to support a more accurate diagnosis. Delaying
screening would require interventions at the individual and/or population level to meet urgent needs
and close monitoring for signs of deterioration. However, this may be more efficient than imple-
menting screening systems that refer the majority of inmates and have limited ability to prioritize

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
114 Journal of Correctional Health Care 22(2)

those with the greatest need (Martin, Wamboldt, O’Connor, Fortier, & Simpson, 2013; Taylor et al.,
2010). Overreferral may be a contributing factor in delays or a lack of treatment for some inmates
presenting with urgent needs such as suicide risk or psychosis (Hassan, Rahman, King, Senior, &
Shaw, 2012; Hayes, Senior, Fahy, & Shaw, 2014; Schilders & Ogloff, 2014), although this question
has not been explored.

Conclusions
While they have received limited attention, diagnostic errors in correctional settings may result in
important consequences for inmates and staff. The extent to which diagnostic errors lead to worse
outcomes is unclear. Further, it is not clear whether it is possible to identify inmate, clinician, or
system factors that can be addressed to reduce these errors. While addressing these questions is
likely to prove to be a challenging task, efforts to resolve them may ensure cost-effective mental
health services to support optimal outcomes for inmates with mental illness.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this
article. For information about JCHC’s disclosure policy, please see the Self-Study Program.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: Mr. Martin is supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Colman is supported by
the Canada Research Chairs program.

References
Aboraya, A. (2007). Clinicians’ opinions on the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses in clinical settings. Psy-
chiatry, 4, 31–33.
Alegrı́a, M., McGuire, T., Vera, M., Canino, G., Albizu, C., Marı́n, H., & Matı́as, L. (2001). Does managed
mental health care reallocate resources to those with greater need for services? Journal of Behavioral Health
Services and Research, 28, 439–455.
Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Carta, M. G., & Schomerus, G. (2014). Changes in the perception of
mental illness stigma in Germany over the last two decades. European Psychiatry, 29, 390–395. doi:10.
1016/j.eurpsy.2013.10.004
Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., & Schomerus, G. (2013). Attitudes towards psychiatric treatment and
people with mental illness: Changes over two decades. British Journal of Psychiatry, 203, 146–151. doi:10.
1192/bjp.bp.112.122978
Blitz, C. L., Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2008). Physical victimization in prison: The role of mental illness. Interna-
tional Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 385–393. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.08.005
Brink, J. H., Doherty, D., & Boer, A. (2001). Mental disorder in federal offenders: A Canadian prevalence
study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 339–356.
Brugha, T., Singleton, N., Meltzer, H., Bebbington, P., Farrell, M., Jenkins, R., . . . Lewis, G. (2005). Psychosis
in the community and in prisons: A report from the British National Survey of psychiatric morbidity.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 774–780. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.4.774
Carr, W. A., Rotter, M., Steinbacher, M., Green, D., Dole, T., Garcia-Mansilla, A., . . . Rosenfeld, B. (2006).
Structured Assessment of Correctional Adaptation (SACA): A measure of the impact of incarceration on the
mentally ill in a therapeutic setting. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimin-
ology, 50, 570–581. doi:10.1177/0606624X06289176
Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Aca-
demic Medicine, 78, 775–780. doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
Martin et al. 115

Crumlish, N., & Kelly, B. D. (2009). How psychiatrists think. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15, 72–79.
doi:10.1192/apt.bp.107.005298
Ditton, P. M. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers (NCJ 174463). Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Dutton, D. G., & Hart, S. D. (1992). Evidence for long-term, specific effects of childhood abuse and neglect on
criminal behavior in men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36,
129–137. doi:10.1177/0306624X9203600205
Edwards, K. A. (2000). Stigmatizing the stigmatized: A note on the mentally ill prison inmate. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 480–489. doi:10.1177/0306624X00444006
Ely, J. W., Graber, M. L., & Croskerry, P. (2011). Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine,
86, 307–313. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820824cd
Evans, C., Brinded, P., Simpson, A. I., Frampton, C., & Mulder, R. T. (2010). Validation of brief screening tools
for mental disorders among New Zealand prisoners. Psychiatric Services, 61, 923–928. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.
61.9.923
Falissard, B., Loze, J.-Y., Gasquet, I., Duburc, A., de Beaurepaire, C., Fagnani, F., & Rouillon, F. (2006).
Prevalence of mental disorders in French prisons for men. BMC Psychiatry, 6, 33. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-
6-33
Fazel, S., & Seewald, K. (2012). Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: Systematic review and
meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 364–373. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096370
First, M. B., & Wakefield, J. C. (2010). Defining ‘‘mental disorder’’ in DSM-V. A commentary on: ‘‘What is a
mental/psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V’’ by Stein et al. (2010). Psychological Medicine, 40,
1779–1782; discussion 1931-1934. doi:10.1017/S0033291709992339
Ford, J. D., Trestman, R. L., Wiesbrock, V., & Zhang, W. (2007). Development and validation of a brief mental
health screening instrument for newly incarcerated adults. Assessment, 14, 279–299. doi:10.1177/
1073191107302944
Frances, A. (2014). Stigmatizing and shunning the severely ill. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
allen-frances/stigmatizing-and-shunning-the-severely-ill_b_5634135.html?utm_hp_ref¼tw
Gollapudi, S. (2011). Clinical psychopharmacology in correctional settings. In T. J. Fagan & R. K. Ax (Eds.),
Correctional mental health: From theory to best practice (pp. 145–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grubin, D., Carson, D., & Parsons, S. (2002). Report on new prison reception health screening arrangements:
The results of a pilot study in 10 prisons (unpublished manuscript). Newcastle, England: University of
Newcastle.
Guy, L. S. (2004). Screening for malingered psychopathology in a correctional setting: Utility of the Miller-
Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 695–716. doi:10.
1177/0093854804268754
Hampton, L. M., Daubresse, M., Chang, H.-Y., Alexander, G. C., & Budnitz, D. S. (2014). Emergency
department visits by adults for psychiatric medication adverse events. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 1006–1014
doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.436
Hart, S. D., Roesch, R., Corrado, R. R., & Cox, D. N. (1993). The Referral Decision Scale: A validation study.
Law and Human Behavior, 17, 611–623.
Hassan, L., Birmingham, L., Harty, M., Jarrett, M., Jones, P., King, C., . . . Shaw, J. (2011). Prospective cohort
study of mental health during imprisonment. British Journal of Psychiatry, 198, 37–42. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.
110.080333
Hassan, L., Rahman, M. S., King, C., Senior, J., & Shaw, J. (2012). Level of mental health intervention and
clinical need among inmates with mental illness in five English jails. Psychiatric Services, 63, 1218–1224.
doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201100344
Hayes, A., Senior, J., Fahy, T., & Shaw, J. (2014). Actions taken in response to mental health screening at
reception into prison. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 25, 371–379. doi:10.1080/14789949.
2014.911947

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
116 Journal of Correctional Health Care 22(2)

Horowitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The loss of sadness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2012). All we have to fear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Katon, W., Sullivan, M., & Walker, E. (2001). Medical symptoms without identified pathology: Relationship to
psychiatric disorders, childhood and adult trauma, and personality traits. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134,
917–925.
Katz, S. J., Kessler, R. C., Frank, R. G., Leaf, P., Lin, E., & Edlund, M. (1997). The use of outpatient mental
health services in the United States and Ontario: The impact of mental morbidity and perceived need for
care. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1136–1143.
Kisely, S., Scott, A., Denney, J., & Simon, G. (2006). Duration of untreated symptoms in common mental
disorders: Association with outcomes: International study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 79–80. doi:
10.1192/bjp.bp.105.019869
Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. A. (2002). A research agenda for DSM-V. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2014). Why ineffective
psychotherapies appear to work: A taxonomy of causes of spurious therapeutic effectiveness. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 9, 355–387. doi:10.1177/1745691614535216
Livingston, J. D. (2009). Mental health and substance use services in correctional settings: A review of minimum
standards. Vancouver, Canada: The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.
Marshall, M., Lewis, S., Lockwood, A., Drake, R., Jones, P., & Croudace, T. (2005). Association between
duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of first-episode patients: A systematic review.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 975–983. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.9.975
Martin, M. S., Colman, I., Simpson, A. I., & McKenzie, K. (2013). Mental health screening tools in correctional
institutions: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 275. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-13-275
Martin, M. S., Dorken, S. K., Wamboldt, A. D., & Wootten, S. E. (2012). Stopping the revolving door: A meta-
analysis on the effectiveness of interventions for criminally involved individuals with major mental dis-
orders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 1–12. doi:10.1037/h0093963
Martin, M. S., Wamboldt, A. D., O’Connor, S. L., Fortier, J., & Simpson, A. I. F. (2013). A comparison of
scoring models for computerised mental health screening for federal prison inmates. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 23, 6–17. doi:10.1002/cbm.1853
Maschi, T., Gibson, S., Zgoba, K. M., & Morgen, K. (2011). Trauma and life event stressors among young and
older adult prisoners. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 17, 160–172. doi:10.1177/1078345810396682
McDermott, B. E., & Sokolov, G. (2009). Malingering in a correctional setting: The use of the Structured
Interview of Reported Symptoms in a jail sample. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 765, 753–765. doi:10.
1002/bsl
Morgan, R. D., Flora, D. B., Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Varghese, F., & Steffan, J. S. (2012). Treating offenders
with mental illness: A research synthesis. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 37–50. doi:10.1037/h0093964
Morgan, R. D., Steffan, J., Shaw, L. B., & Wilson, S. (2007). Needs for and barriers to correctional mental
health services: Inmate perceptions. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1181–1186. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.9.1181
Nath, S. B., & Marcus, S. C. (2006). Medical errors in psychiatry. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 14, 204–211.
doi:10.1080/10673220600889272
Paris, J. (2013). The intelligent clinician’s guide to the DSM-5. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paris, J., & Phillips, J. (Eds.). (2012). Making the DSM-5: Concepts and controversies. New York, NY:
Springer.
Phillips, J., Frances, A., Cerullo, M. A., Chardavoyne, J., Decker, H. S., First, M. B., . . . Zachar, P. (2012a). The
six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and
pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 7, 8. doi:10.1186/
1747-5341-7-8
Phillips, J., Frances, A., Cerullo, M. A., Chardavoyne, J., Decker, H. S., First, M. B., . . . Zachar, P. (2012b). The
six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 3: Issues of utility and alternative

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016
Martin et al. 117

approaches in psychiatric diagnosis. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 7, 9. doi:10.1186/

1747-5341-7-9
Powitzky, R. (2011). Comparison of correctional and community mental health service delivery models. In T. J.
Fagan & R. K. Ax (Eds.), Correctional mental health: From theory to best practice (pp. 37–56). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prins, S., & Draper, L. (2009). Improving outcomes for people with mental illnesses under community correc-
tions supervision: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. New York, NY: Council of State
Governments Justice Center.
Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2014). Willingness to disclose a mental disorder and knowledge of disorders in
others: Changes in Australia over 16 years. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48,
162–168. doi:10.1177/0004867413495317
Rotter, M., McQuistion, H. L., Broner, N., & Steinbacher, M. (2005). The impact of the ‘‘incarceration culture’’
on reentry for adults with mental illness: A training and group treatment model. Psychiatric Services, 56,
265–267. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.56.3.265
Saxena, S., Esparza, P., Regier, D. A., Saraceno, B., & Sartorious, N. (Eds.). (2012). Public health aspects of
diagnosis and classification of mental and behavioral disorders: Refining the research agenda for DSM-5
and ICD-11. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Schilders, M. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2014). Review of point-of-reception mental health screening outcomes in
an Australian Prison. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 25, 480–494. doi:10.1080/14789949.
2014.933862
Schomerus, G., Schwahn, C., Holzinger, A., Corrigan, P. W., Grabe, H. J., Carta, M. G., & Angermeyer, M. C.
(2012). Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125, 440–452. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01826.x
Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S., & Peterson, J. K. (2011). Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness:
Creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 110–126. doi:10.1007/
s10979-010-9223-7
Steadman, H. J., Osher, F. C., Clark Robbins, P., Case, B., & Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental
illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60, 761–765. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.60.6.761
Steadman, H. J., Scott, J. E., Osher, F., Agnese, T. K., & Robbins, P. C. (2005). Validation of the brief jail
mental health screen. Psychiatric Services, 56, 816–822. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.56.7.816
Stein, D. J., Phillips, K. A., Bolton, D., Fulford, K. W. M., Sadler, J. Z., & Kendler, K. S. (2010). What is a
mental/psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1759–1765. doi:10.
1017/S0033291709992261
Taylor, P., Walker, J., & Dunn, E. (2010). Improving mental state in early imprisonment. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 20, 215–231. doi:10.1002/cbm
Veysey, B. M., Steadman, H. J., Morrissey, J. P., Johnsen, M., & Beckstead, J. W. (1998). Using the Referral
Decision Scale to screen mentally ill jail detainees: Validity and implementation issues. Law and Human
Behavior, 22, 205–215.
Way, B. B., Kaufman, A. R., Knoll, J. L., & Chlebowski, S. M. (2013). Suicidal ideation among inmate-patients
in state prison: Prevalence, reluctance to report, and treatment preferences. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 31, 230–238. doi:10.1002/bsl.2055
Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., & Shi, J. (2007). Rates of sexual victimization in prison for inmates with and without
mental disorders. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1087–1094. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.8.1087
Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women
offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23,
310–340. doi:10.1177/1043986207309595

Downloaded from jcx.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on March 21, 2016