Altered memory and affective instability in prisoners assessed for dangerous and severe personality disorder

Reimbursing incarcerated individuals for participation in research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about global practices regarding the provision of reimbursement for the participation of people who are incarcerated in research. To determine current practices related to the reimbursement of incarcerated populations for research, we aimed to describe international variations in practice across countries and carceral environments to help inform the development of more consistent and equitable practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase, and conducted a grey literature search for English- and French-language articles published until September 30, 2022. All studies evaluating any carceral-based research were included if recruitment of incarcerated participants occurred inside any non-juvenile carceral setting; we excluded studies if recruitment occurred exclusively following release. Where studies failed to indicate the presence or absence of reimbursement, we assumed none was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 4,328 unique articles were identified, 2,765 were eligible for full text review, and 426 were included. Of these, 295 (69%) did not offer reimbursement to incarcerated individuals. A minority (n = 13; 4%) included reasons explaining the absence of reimbursement, primarily government-level policies (n = 7). Among the 131 (31%) studies that provided reimbursement, the most common form was monetary compensation (n = 122; 93%); five studies (4%) offered possible reduced sentencing. Reimbursement ranged between $3-610 USD in total and 14 studies (11%) explained the reason behind the reimbursements, primarily researchers' discretion (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of research conducted to date in carceral settings globally has not reimbursed incarcerated participants. Increased transparency regarding reimbursement (or lack thereof) is needed as part of all carceral research and advocacy efforts are required to change policies prohibiting reimbursement of incarcerated individuals. Future work is needed to co-create international standards for the equitable reimbursement of incarcerated populations in research, incorporating the voices of people with lived and living experience of incarceration.

Monoamine Oxidase-A Genetic Variants and Childhood Abuse Predict Impulsiveness in Borderline Personality Disorder

Objective

Impulsivity is a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) that likely arises from combined genetic and environmental influences. The interaction of the low activity variant of the monoamine oxidase-A (MAOA-L) gene and early childhood adversity has been shown to predict aggression in clinical and non-clinical populations. Although impulsivity is a risk factor for aggression in BPD and ASPD, little research has investigated potential gene-environment (G×E) influences impacting its expression in these conditions. Moreover, G×E interactions may differ by diagnosis.

Methods

Full factorial analysis of variance was employed to investigate the influence of monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) genotype, childhood abuse, and diagnosis on Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) scores in 61 individuals: 20 subjects with BPD, 18 subjects with ASPD, and 23 healthy controls.

Results

A group×genotype×abuse interaction was present (F(2,49)=4.4, p=0.018), such that the interaction of MAOA-L and childhood abuse predicted greater BIS-11 motor impulsiveness in BPD. Additionally, BPD subjects reported higher BIS-11 attentional impulsiveness versus ASPD participants (t(1,36)=2.3, p=0.025).

Conclusion

These preliminary results suggest that MAOA-L may modulate the impact of childhood abuse on impulsivity in BPD. Results additionally indicate that impulsiveness may be expressed differently in BPD and ASPD.

Poor Sleep and Its Relation to Impulsivity in Patients with Antisocial or Borderline Personality Disorders

Studies investigating sleep and personality disorders consistently demonstrate a relation between personality disorders characterized by behavioral disinhibition and/or emotional dysregulation (traditionally termed cluster B personality disorders) and poor sleep. This finding is in line with previous studies associating insomnia with impulsive behavior, since this is a core characteristic of both antisocial and borderline personality disorder. The current study investigates a group (n = 112) of forensic psychiatric inpatients with antisocial or borderline personality disorder or traits thereof. Subjective sleep characteristics and impulsivity were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Sleep Diagnosis List, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, respectively. More than half of the patients (53.6%) report poor sleep quality and 22.3% appears to suffer from severe chronic insomnia. Both poor sleep quality and chronic insomnia are significantly associated with self-reported impulsivity, in particular with attentional impulsiveness. This association was not significantly influenced by comorbid disorders. Actively treating sleep problems in these patients may not only improve sleep quality, mental health, and physical well-being, but may also have impact on impulsivity-related health risks by increasing self-control.

The dangerous and severe personality disorder experiment--review of empirical research

BACKGROUND

A pilot programme for the treatment of individuals with dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) was established in the UK in 2001. A substantial investment had been made into research and evaluation of the initiative, but it is not clear what the outcomes of this research have been.

AIM

This study aimed to review empirical research on the DSPD programme.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review by using electronic searches of the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, complemented by hand searches of key journals and websites.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 29 empirical research papers and three comprehensive research reports. Most studies were concerned with describing the DSPD population and confirmed that the projects targeted high-risk personality disordered offenders. Qualitative research identified a number of concerns regarding stigma, restrictiveness of the environment and indeterminate detention. Organisational enquiries recognised inefficiencies in assessment and treatment delivery. No high-quality trials were carried out of specific treatments or service environments.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The key question--what treatments are effective for high-risk personality disordered offenders--remains unanswered. More time would be needed to fully assess the impact of this programme, and similar future initiatives should allow longer observation periods.