Cited by 199Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Patients’ experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation: systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Open access
Akther, Syeda Ferhana, Molyneaux, Emma, Stuart, Ruth, Johnson, Sonia, Simpson, Alan, Oram, Sian·2019·BJPsych Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient experiences of detention under mental health legislation is crucial to efforts to reform policy and practice. AIMS: To synthesise qualitative evidence on patients' experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation. METHOD: Five bibliographic databases were searched, supplemented by reference list screening and citation tracking. Studies were included if they reported on patient experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation; reported on patients aged 18 years or older; collected data using qualitative methods; and were reported in peer-reviewed journals. Findings were analysed and synthesised using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The review included 56 papers. Themes were generally consistent across studies and related to information and involvement in care, the environment and relationships with staff, as well as the impact of detention on feelings of self-worth and emotional state. The emotional impact of detention and views of its appropriateness varied, but a frequent theme was fear and distress during detention, including in relation to the use of force and restraint. Where staff were perceived as striving to form caring and collaborative relationships with patients despite the coercive nature of treatment, and when clear information was delivered, the negative impact of involuntary care seemed to be reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that involuntary in-patient care is often frightening and distressing, but certain factors were identified that can help reduce negative experiences. Coproduction models may be fruitful in developing new ways of working on in-patient wards that provide more voice to patients and staff, and physical and social environments that are more conducive to recovery. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

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 · 10.1192/bjo.2019.19

Cites

95 of 95 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?

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
Akther, S. F., Molyneaux, E., Stuart, R., Johnson, S., Simpson, A., & Oram, S.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Akther, Syeda Ferhana
Venue
BJPsych Open
Published
2019-04-24
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
e37-e37
ISSN
2056-4724 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2940783055
Cited by
193
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Department of Health and Social Care
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
mental health law, involuntary detention, patient experience, mental health assessment, coercion in mental health care, staff-patient relationship, self-worth, co-production, mental health policy reform

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