Forensic Psychiatric PatientsREMS FEIFTNCT06854133
Factors of Effectiveness in Italian Forensic Treatment
An observational study of Forensic Psychiatric Patients and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), run by University of Bari at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
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… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Forensic Psychiatric Patients, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST)
- How many people
- 600 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2025to 30 Jun 2031
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population consists of mentally ill offenders, with total or partial mental infirmity, entering Italian forensic care settings (Group I: REMS or non-custodial forensic settings) or Californian hospital forensic facilities (Group C) for the first time during the enrolment period. The Italian sample will be recruited through the national network of Departments of Mental Health (DSM) and forensic structures (REMS and community forensic services) participating in the study, coordinated through the Regional Single Contact Points (P.U.R.) established under the 2022 Unified Conference Agreement no. 188/CU. The Californian sample will be recruited through the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) network under the coordination of Prof. Katherine Warburton.
Who may be able to join
- 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
Who cannot join
- 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
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Italy1 site
Dipartimento Interdisciplinare Di Medicina, Psichiatria Forense E Criminologia
Bari, Ba, 70121
About this study
Official title: Longitudinal Study Comparing an Italian and a Californian Population of Mentally Ill Offenders: Identification of Forensic Treatment Effectiveness Factors
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.
Read more
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Forensic Psychiatric Patients, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST), Psychotic Disorders, Community-based Forensic Treatment, Violent Behaviour and Recidivism
- Keywords
- forensic psychiatry, REMS (Residences for the Execution of Security Measures), violence risk assessment, forensic rehabilitation, security measures, mentally disordered offenders, community forensic services
- Medical subject headings
- Psychotic Disorders, Recidivism
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Italian forensic patients | Adults with mental disorders subject to custodial or non-custodial security measures in Italy (for example placement in REMS, supervised liberty, dedicated residential or community forensic facilities), entering the Italian forensic mental health system for the first time during the enrolment period. | |
| Californian Forensic patients | Adults with mental disorders admitted to California state hospital or community forensic settings under incompetency to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) legal provisions, entering the Californian forensic mental health system for the first time during the enrolment period. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Violent recidivism
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.
Measured: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)
Secondary outcomes (1)
Change in violence risk score (Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3)
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.
Measured: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Mar 2025
- Study start1 Feb 2025
- Primary completion31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2031 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Forensic Psychiatric PatientsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 600 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Bari
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Felice Carabellese, University of Bari
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06854133
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- REMS FEIFT
- Acronym
- REMS FEIFT
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 25 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 4 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: I have not decided yet
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Longitudinal Study Comparing an Italian and a Californian Population of Mentally Ill Offenders: Identification of Forensic Treatment Effectiveness Factors
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06854133
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- REMS FEIFT / REMS FEIFT
- Conditions
- Forensic Psychiatric Patients, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST), Psychotic Disorders, Community-based Forensic Treatment, Violent Behaviour and Recidivism
- Keywords
- forensic psychiatry, REMS (Residences for the Execution of Security Measures), violence risk assessment, forensic rehabilitation, security measures, mentally disordered offenders, community forensic services
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 600 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of BariUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2031 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Italian forensic patients | – | –Adults with mental disorders subject to custodial or non-custodial security measures in Italy (for example placement in REMS, supervised liberty, dedicated residential or community forensic facilities), entering the Italian forensic mental health system for the first time during the enrolment period. |
| Californian Forensic patients | – | –Adults with mental disorders admitted to California state hospital or community forensic settings under incompetency to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) legal provisions, entering the Californian forensic mental health system for the first time during the enrolment period. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population consists of mentally ill offenders, with total or partial mental infirmity, entering Italian forensic care settings (Group I: REMS or non-custodial forensic settings) or Californian hospital forensic facilities (Group C) for the first time during the enrolment period. The Italian sample will be recruited through the national network of Departments of Mental Health (DSM) and forensic structures (REMS and community forensic services) participating in the study, coordinated through the Regional Single Contact Points (P.U.R.) established under the 2022 Unified Conference Agreement no. 188/CU. The Californian sample will be recruited through the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) network under the coordination of Prof. Katherine Warburton.
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- 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
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
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.
1 secondary outcome
Change in violence risk score (Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3)
Time frame: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jun 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. I have not decided yet
Related trials for Forensic Psychiatric Patients
Enrolling by invitation
Improving Lifestyle Habits and Metabolic Health in Forensic Psychiatric Patients
Forensic Psychiatric Patients, Cardio Vascular Disease
Recruiting
Virtual Reality Aggression Prevention Training (VRAPT) for (Forensic) Psychiatric Patients
Forensic Psychiatry
Recruiting
Talking for Change: Secondary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse Perpetration
Pedophilia, Hebephilia
Recruiting
The Efficacy of Metacognitive Skills Training in the Context of Forensic Psychiatric Care
Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Forensic Psychiatric Patients and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), run by University of Bari at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Violent recidivism (time frame: Time Frame: from T0 (baseline) to T3 (36 months)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Jun 2026.