Cited by 11Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsMental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health services

Experience-based investigation and codesign of approaches to prevent and reduce Mental Health Act use (CO-PACT): a protocol.

Open access
Mooney, Roisin, Newbigging, Karen, McCabe, Rose, McCrone, Paul, Halvorsrud, Kristoffer, Raghavan, Raghu, Joseph, Doreen, Bhui, Kamaldeep·2022·BMJ Open

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (MHA) in England and Wales confirmed increasing levels of compulsory detentions, especially for racialised communities. This research aims to: (a) understand the causes of and propose preventive opportunities to reduce the disproportionate use of the MHA, (b) use an adapted form of experience-based codesign (EBCD) to facilitate system-wide changes and (c) foreground the voices of service users at risk of detention to radically reform policy and implement new legislation to ensure the principles of equity are retained. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative study, using a comparative case study design. This study is composed of five work packages; photovoice workshops will be conducted in eight local systems with service users and healthcare professionals separately (WP1); a series of three EBCD workshops in each local system to develop approaches that reduce detentions and improve the experience of people from racialised communities. This will inform a comparative analysis and national knowledge exchange workshop (WP2); an evaluation led by the patient and public involvement group to better understand what it is like for people to participate in photovoice, codesign and participatory research (WP3); an economic evaluation (WP4) and dissemination strategy (WP5). The impact of the involvement of patients and public will be independently evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and granted ethical approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (21/SC/0204). The outputs from this study will be shared through several local and national channels.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060086

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Collaborative care planning approaches such as codesign and coproduction have become increasingly important in mental health intervention design and delivery and have been shown to improve service quality.

    “Collaborative care planning approaches, such as codesign and coproduction, have thereby become increasingly important in mental health intervention design and delivery, and have been shown to improve service quality (44–47).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Methods and analysis sections describe using codesign with service users and professionals to develop mental health service approaches, supporting that part of the claim. But this is a study protocol: it does not establish that these approaches have become increasingly important or have been shown to improve service quality. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mooney, R., Newbigging, K., McCabe, R., McCrone, P., Halvorsrud, K., Raghavan, R., Joseph, D., & Bhui, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • University of Greenwich (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • De Montfort University (GB)
Corresponding author
Mooney, Roisin
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-02
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
e060086
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210873150
Cited by
11
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
NIHR Policy research programme (NIHR201704)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
Mental Health Act, compulsory detention, racialized communities, photovoice, service user involvement, mental health policy reform, equity in mental health services, patient and public involvement, economic evaluation
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Mental Health, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review