Suchergebnisse

Three mental health courts (MHCs) are included in this study of whether enrollment in MHC affects community treatment access, utilization, time to service, program outcome, arrests, and jail days. Researchers approached newly enrolled MHC participants ( n = 296) and similar "treatment as usual" (TAU) jail detainees ( n = 386) screened as eligible for study participation. Baseline and 6-month interviews were conducted, and respondents allowed researchers access to their mental health and criminal justice records. We found that on discharge from jail on target charges, MHC participants accessed community treatment more quickly than did the TAU respondents. Furthermore, prior to enrollment in MHC, this sample had twice as many crisis treatment episodes as the TAUs, and they received more therapeutic treatment episodes. One year after enrollment, the MHC sample had more intensive and therapeutic treatment episodes than the TAUs. We found no relationship between the type of treatment intervention received (or not) and whether the MHC enrollees were arrested or in jail following MHC enrollment.

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of country-level governance on business environment and entrepreneurship for an international large sample of countries for a period of six years (2007-2012). The dimensions of country-level governance at macroeconomic level will be captured by using the following six indicators developed by the World Bank: 1. Voice and accountability; 2. Political stability and absence of violence; 3. Government effectiveness; 4. Regulatory quality; 5. Rule of law; 6. Control of corruption. To capture the quality of business environment we use the Ease of doing business index developed by the World Bank in its Doing Business report series. To measure entrepreneurship we use the World Bank Group Entrepreneurship Survey where the number of new registered businesses, as a percentage of the working age population is defined as a measure of formal entrepreneurship. In order to capture the extent to which country-level governance does influence business environment and entrepreneurship, we analyze the data using cross-sectional time-series random effects generalized least square (GLS) models. The results of this panel data analysis clarifies and quantifies the influence that various characteristics of country-level governance could have on business environment and entrepreneurship. Therefore, this study could have significant implications for policy-makers as well as for businesses.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of people with mental-health problems are diverse across countries. International studies comparing satisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the national mental-health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in 11 countries: Ireland, Iceland, England and Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and India. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental Health Legislation Attitudes Scale (MHLAS). This brief nine-item questionnaire was distributed via email to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental-health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert scale. Data were analysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS 'approval' score computed as a sum of the nine questions. We found that respondents in England and Wales and Denmark expressed the highest approval for their national legislation (76% and 74%, respectively), with those in India and Ireland expressing the lowest approval (65% and 64%, respectively). Almost all countries had a more positive attitude in comparison to Ireland on the admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people are transferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variations across Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the national mental-health law framework operates in each country.