ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2020
The experience of long stay in high and medium secure psychiatric hospitals in England: qualitative study of the patient perspective.
Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaging Service Users in Co-Designing a Nurse-Led Weight Talk Tool for Low- and Medium-Secure Mental Health Inpatient Settings: A Participatory Intervention Development Study.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Optimism, ambivalence, and opportunities: staff perspectives signaling a critical turn in patient-oriented research in forensic mental health care settings.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Barriers to discharge: A retrospective study of factors associated with stays of longer than 2 years in a French secure hospital unit.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2024Article
- Institutional influence on length of stay in German forensic hospitals: a multilevel analysis of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- A service evaluation of passive remote monitoring technology for patients in a high-secure forensic psychiatric hospital: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Advancing research in adult secure mental health services in England.Medicine, science, and the law · 2022Article
- High Security Settings in Flanders: An Analysis of Discharged and Long-Term Forensic Psychiatric Patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Personal recovery and its challenges in forensic mental health: systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.BJPsych open · 2021Review
- Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2021Article
- A Comparison of English and Dutch Long-Stay Patients in Forensic Psychiatric Care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome forensic patients in England remain in secure care for long, possibly unnecessarily prolonged, periods, raising significant ethical and resource issues. Research focused on the patients in secure care has examined quality of life and service provision but not the perspectives of patients experiencing long stays. This study explored how long stay patients experience secure care, what factors they felt influenced long stay, and its impact upon treatment engagement and motivation to progress.
methodsEmbedded within a larger epidemiological study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of forty long stay patients from two high and six medium secure hospitals. Long stay was defined as a 5 years stay in medium secure care
resultsFour themes emerged illustrating participants' attribution, outlook, approach, and readiness for change. A typology of four long stay stances was developed (dynamic acceptance, dynamic resistance, static acceptance, static resistance). These illustrate differences in the extent to which participants believed being in secure care helped them to get better, and actively work towards progression and leaving secure care. There were considerable differences in how patients adopting these stances attributed the reasons for their long stay, they viewed their future, and their motivation to progress. Negative perceptions arose from excessive restrictions, treatment repetition and changes in therapeutic relationships, leading some patients to exhibiting tokenistic engagement and low motivation to progress.
conclusionsPlanning care for long stay patients in secure psychiatric settings should take account of the differing stances patient's adopt towards engagement and progression. Service providers should be mindful of these stances and provide patients with individualised opportunities to progress through the secure care treatment pathway, avoiding treatment repetition and maintaining continuity in key professional relationships. Refocusing on quality of life may be appropriate for some long-term patients who are unwilling or unable to move on. For some long-term patients, purpose designed long stay setting may be appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.