Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28316797›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2017

Exploring professionals' understanding, interpretation and implementation of the 'appropriate medical treatment test' in the 2007 amendment of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Benjamin I Perry, Nina Champaneri, Frances Griffiths, Moli Paul, Zoebia Islam, Jorun Rugkåsa, Tom Burns, Peter Tyrer, Michael Crawford, Shoumitro Deb and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Benjamin I Perry, BSc, MBBS, Department of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust, Nuneaton, UK.
Nina Champaneri, MBChB, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Frances Griffiths, MBBS, PhD, FRCGP, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Moli Paul, MBChB, MMedSci, MRCPsych, Department of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Zoebia Islam, MSc, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Birmingham and Solihull Mentla Health Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Jorun Rugkåsa, Cand Mag, Cand Polit, PhD, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Akershus University, Oslo, Norway.
Tom Burns, MD, DSc, FRCPsych, CBE, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter Tyrer, MD, FRCP, FRCPsych, FMedSci, Centre for Mental Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michael Crawford, MD, FRCPsych, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Shoumitro Deb, MBBS, FRCPsych, MD, Centre for Psychiatry, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Swaran P Singh, MD, MBBS, FRCPsych, Department of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe appropriate medical treatment test (ATT), included in the Mental Health Act (MHA) (1983, as amended 2007), aims to ensure that detention only occurs when treatment with the purpose of alleviating a mental disorder is available.

aimsAs part of the Assessing the Impact of the Mental Health Act (AMEND) project, this qualitative study aimed to assess professionals' understanding of the ATT, and its impact on clinical practice.

methodForty-one professionals from a variety of mental health subspecialties were interviewed. Interviews were coded related to project aims, and themes were generated in an inductive process.

resultsWe found that clinicians are often wholly relied upon for the ATT. Considered treatment varied depending on the patient's age rather than diagnosis. The ATT has had little impact on clinical practice.

conclusionsOur findings suggest the need to review training and support for professionals involved in MHA assessments, with better-defined roles. This may enable professionals to implement the ATT as its designers intended. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

Identifiers

PMID28316797
PMCPMC5322255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.