Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043435›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2020

Carers' experiences of involuntary admission under mental health legislation: systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

Ruth Stuart, Syeda Ferhana Akther, Karen Machin, Karen Persaud, Alan Simpson, Sonia Johnson, Sian Oram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The contribution ofBJPsych open · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth StuartResearch Assistant, Health Service & Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-3840
Syeda Ferhana AktherTrainee Clinical Psychologist, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3451-2576
Karen MachinVisiting Lecturer, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0374-4238
Karen PersaudHonorary Research Associate, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, UK.
Alan SimpsonProfessor of Mental Health Nursing, Health Service & Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London; and Director (KCL), NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-9846
Sonia JohnsonProfessor of Social and Community Psychiatry, Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London; Director (UCL), NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit; and Consultant Clinical Psychiatrist, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2219-1384
Sian OramLecturer and Head of the Section of Women's Mental Health, Health Service & Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London; Deputy Director (KCL), NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8704-0379
King's College London · GBMental Health Research UK · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarers are key providers of care and support to mental health patients and mental health policies consistently mandate carer involvement. Understanding carers' experiences of and views about assessment for involuntary admission and subsequent detention is crucial to efforts to improve policy and practice.

aimsWe aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence of carers' experiences of the assessment and detention of their family and friends under mental health legislation.

methodWe searched five bibliographic databases, reference lists and citations. Studies were included if they collected data using qualitative methods and the patients were aged 18 or older; reported on carer experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation anywhere in the world; and were published in peer-reviewed journals. We used meta-synthesis.

resultsThe review included 23 papers. Themes were consistent across time and setting and related to the emotional impact of detention; the availability of support for carers; the extent to which carers felt involved in decision-making; relationships with patients and staff during detention; and the quality of care provided to patients. Carers often described conflicting feelings of relief coupled with distress and anxiety about how the patient might cope and respond. Carers also spoke about the need for timely and accessible information, supportive and trusting relationships with mental health professionals, and of involvement as partners in care.

conclusionsResearch is needed to explore whether and how health service and other interventions can improve the involvement and support of carers prior to, during and after the detention of family members and friends.

Indexed as

carersinvoluntary admissionmeta-synthesisqualitativeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32043435
PMCPMC7176830
OpenAlexW3006105776

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.