Paul P Christopher

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States

Are you Paul P Christopher?

Claim your profile

Publications (10)20.1 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Criminal justice problems among those with bipolar disorder lead to disruption in social functioning, treatment, and recovery. Understanding factors that contribute to arrest during episodes of illness can help inform approaches to risk management and improve clinical care. METHODS: Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a longitudinal, nationally representative survey conducted in two waves were used to identify factors that predicted inter-wave criminal justice involvement during bipolar I manic episodes. RESULTS: Over 10% of respondents experienced legal involvement during their most severe manic episode. Risk was found in a range of historical, clinical, and contextual factors. Multivariate analyses suggest risk is particularly high for those who are unemployed, non-white, have past juvenile detention, have a prior arrest (while using substances or when manic), used an illicit drug in the past year, and whose mania is characterized by both social and occupational impairment. Legal problems were particularly elevated among those who lacked health insurance while experiencing both social and occupational impairment. LIMITATIONS: Respondents did not include prisoners and hospital inpatients; criminal justice problems were only assessed with regard to the most severe manic episode. CONCLUSIONS: The particular array of factors that elevate the risk of legal involvement during manic episodes offers guidance when identifying prevention strategies and evaluating patients in clinical and forensic settings. Reducing such involvement will require that these issues be dealt with in the broader context of mental health and other services, which in turn necessitates providing adequate access to healthcare.
    Journal of affective disorders 03/2013; · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression appears promising, but concerns have been raised about the decisional capacity of severely depressed patients and their potential misconceptions about the research. We assessed 31 DBS research participants with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a well-validated capacity measure, and with a scale to measure therapeutic misconception, which occurs when subjects do not recognize key differences between treatment and clinical research. Correlations with baseline depressive symptoms were explored. Subjects' performance on the MacCAT-CR was excellent, but therapeutic misconception was still apparent. A trend toward significance was found in the correlation between baseline depression ratings and total therapeutic misconception score. Responses to open-ended prompts revealed both reassuring and concerning statements related to expectations of risk, benefit, and individualization. Even severely depressed patients did not manifest impairments in their capacity to consent to DBS research. Therapeutic misconception, however, remained prevalent.
    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 07/2012; 1265:69-79. · 4.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the patterns of criminal arrest and co-occurring psychiatric disorders among individuals with schizophrenia or related psychosis that were receiving public mental health services and had an arrest history. Within a 10-year period, 65% of subjects were arrested for crimes against public order, 50% for serious violent crimes, and 45% for property crimes. The presence of any co-occurring disorder increased the risk of arrest for all offense categories. For nearly all offense types, antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders conferred the greatest increase in risk for arrest. Among anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder was associated with a greater risk of arrest for serious violent crimes but not other offense types. Criminal risk assessments and clinical management in this population should focus on co-occurring antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders in addition to other clinical and non-clinical factors.
    The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 01/2012; 39(3):271-84. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • Paul P Christopher, Patrick J McCabe, William H Fisher
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study sought to determine the prevalence of criminal justice involvement during episodes of mania and to identify whether specific manic symptoms contribute to this risk. Data from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults (N=43,093), were analyzed to determine the rate of legal involvement (being arrested, held at the police station, or jailed) of individuals with bipolar I disorder during the most severe lifetime manic episode. Among the 1,044 respondents (2.5%) who met criteria for having experienced a manic episode, 13.0% reported legal involvement during the most severe manic episode. Unadjusted analyses found legal involvement more likely among those with episode-specific symptoms of increased self-esteem or grandiosity, increased libido, excessive engagement in pleasurable activities with a high risk of painful consequences, having six or more criterion B manic symptoms, and having both social and occupational impairment. The risk was lower among those with hypertalkativeness or pressured speech. When analyses adjusted for other manic symptoms and static variables, males, those with a first episode at age 23 or younger, and persons with mania-associated social indiscretions, excessive spending or reckless driving, and both social and occupational impairment were at greater risk. A large percentage of persons experience legal involvement during a manic episode, and it is associated with specific symptoms of mania. Efforts to reduce such involvement among persons during manic episodes may be enhanced by focusing attention and resources on this high-risk group.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 01/2012; 63(1):33-9. · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ethical concerns regarding early-phase clinical trials of DBS for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include the possibility that participants' decisions to enroll might be motivated by unrealistic expectations of personal benefit or minimization of risks. Thematic analyses were conducted on a sample of 26 adults considering participation in two DBS trials. Influences on the decision making of these potential DBS trial participants were derived from responses to questions posed in the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a semi-structured interview designed to evaluate decisional capacity to consent to research. Participants cited numerous factors as influential in their enrollment decisions, including perceived lack of other treatment options, desire to take initiative, beliefs about DBS as a novel treatment, possibility of DBS efficacy, hoped-for improvements, potential risks and disadvantages of DBS or clinical trial participation, and altruism. No individual expressed a set of motivations or influencing factors that suggested compromised decision-making capacity or diminished voluntariness of decision making. These results suggest that individuals make the decision to enroll in early-phase trials of DBS for TRD based on a number of complex and sometimes idiosyncratic considerations, and that the trials that were studied utilized sufficiently robust informed consent processes. These findings offer evidence that the emerging research area of DBS can be advanced in an ethically sound manner, provided that safeguards and processes for discussing trials with participants are carefully and proactively enacted.
    Depression and Anxiety 11/2011; 29(2):139-46. · 4.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants’ perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD. Methods: Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations. Results: Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as “high risk.” Most participants rated the entire DBS study as “moderate” or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly. Conclusions: Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.
    AJOB Primary Research. 10/2011; 2(4):33-41.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the past 30 years, the incarcerated population in the United States has more than quadrupled to 2.3 million adults. With an alarmingly high prevalence of mental illness, substance use, and other serious health conditions compounding their curtailed autonomy, prisoners constitute perhaps the nation's most disadvantaged group. Scientifically rigorous research involving prisoners holds the potential to inform and enlighten correctional policy and to improve their treatment. At the same time, prisoner research presents significant ethical challenges to investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) alike, by subjecting participants to conditions that potentially undermine the validity of their informed consent. In 2006, the Institute of Medicine Committee on Ethical Considerations for Revisions to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Regulations for Protection of Prisoners Involved in Research recommended both further protections and a more permissive approach to research review that would allow inmates greater access to potentially beneficial research. These recommendations have sparked renewed debate about the ethical trade-offs inherent to prisoner research. In this article, the authors review the major justifications for research with prisoner subjects and the associated ethical concerns, and argue that the field of empirical ethics has much to offer to the debate. They then propose a framework for prioritizing future empirical ethics inquiry on this understudied topic.
    AJOB Primary Research. 10/2011; 2(4):18-25.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The task of evaluating psychiatric disability poses several ethics-related and practical challenges for psychiatrists, especially when they are responding to a request from a third party for a disability evaluation on their own patient. This study sought to evaluate the differences in how forensic and nonforensic psychiatrists approach and view evaluations for Social Security disability benefits. Thirty-two forensic and 75 nonforensic psychiatrists were surveyed on their practice patterns and perceptions of role, objectivity, and dual agency in the disability evaluation process. Significant differences were found between forensic and nonforensic psychiatrists' perceptions of the dual-agency conflict, beliefs about who should perform evaluations, and beliefs about the weight given to different opinions when decisions of whether to award disability benefits are made. A minority of respondents in both groups reported having identified a patient as disabled, despite believing otherwise. The implications of these findings are discussed.
    The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 01/2011; 39(2):183-8. · 0.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing frequency and societal cost of psychiatric disability underscore the need for accuracy in evaluating patients who seek disability benefits. The authors investigated senior psychiatric residents' experiences performing disability evaluations, their self-assessment of competence for this task, and whether they perceived a need for more training. Seventy-nine third- and fourth-year psychiatric residents in Massachusetts and Rhode Island training programs were surveyed from May to June in 2008. Participants were asked about the frequency of requests and completion of disability evaluations, the practice patterns followed when performing evaluations, the identification of role and potential conflict of interest in doing evaluations, and their sense of preparedness and need for more training. Residents reported having limited experience performing disability evaluations and followed a variety of practice patterns when performing evaluations. They reported having a limited understanding of what constitutes psychiatric disability and a lack of confidence in their ability to perform evaluations accurately. A significant minority had identified patients as disabled despite believing otherwise. A majority of residents reported receiving no didactics on psychiatric disability and desired more training. Residents may be unprepared to perform disability evaluations. Residency programs may need to provide additional training.
    Academic Psychiatry 01/2010; 34(3):211-5. · 0.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Poor readability of informed consent forms has been a persistent problem in clinical research. The low educational attainments of many patients with mental illness might suggest a still greater problem in mental health settings. To explore this potential disparity, this study sought to determine whether the informed consent forms used in research approved by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health were written at a grade level that was higher than that achieved by potential study participants. The readability (grade level necessary to read text) of informed consent forms for 154 studies was calculated with several standard formulas. Readability scores were stratified on the basis of the risk level of the study from which the consent form was taken. These data were then compared with data on the maximum attained grade level of potential participants aged 19 years or older. The overall mean readability scores for the informed consent forms, as determined by the four methods, ranged from grade levels 12 to 14.5. Furthermore, the mean readability scores increased with higher risk levels of the studies. Approximately 35% of potential participants had not graduated from high school, 37% had graduated from high school or obtained a GED, and 28% had some education beyond the 12th grade. These data demonstrate poor readability of informed consent forms used in research approved by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and highlight a mismatch between consent form readability and the educational level of potential study participants. The findings suggest that methods of reducing the complexity of forms, as part of improving the overall consent process, are much needed.
    Psychiatric Services 03/2007; 58(2):227-32. · 2.01 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

36 Citations
20.10 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2013
    • Brown University
      • Alpert Medical School
      Providence, Rhode Island, United States
  • 2010–2013
    • University of Massachusetts Medical School
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Worcester, MA, United States
  • 2012
    • Columbia University
      • Department of Psychiatry
      New York City, NY, United States
  • 2007
    • Butler Hospital
      Providence, Rhode Island, United States