ArticleBJPsych bulletin2021
Involving service users to identify research priorities in a UK forensic mental health service.
Article in BJPsych bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Developing forensic patient-oriented research guidelines: a rapid review using an integrated knowledge translation approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Patient and public involvement in secure mental health research: setting-specific considerations and a protocol for involvement in the CORAS study (COllaborative Risk ASsessment and management).Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Physical Health and Health Behaviours of Australians with Psychosis.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Implementation and evaluation of participatory advisory boards in mental health research: a research protocol of the 'PART-Beirat' project.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- A feasibility evaluation of Discovery Group: determining the acceptability and potential outcomes of a patient-led research group in a secure mental health inpatient setting.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
methodPatient and public involvement (PPI) is a priority for health research. PPI improves the relevance and quality of research. The study aimed to involve service users in identifying research priorities for the service. A two-phase adapted Delphi technique was used to generate a list of research topics from service users in secure in-patient mental health settings and on specialist mental health prison wings. Topic content analysis was undertaken. Service users were further consulted, and research themes were ranked in order of priority.
resultsOf the eight research themes identified, the three given the highest priority by service users were, in descending order, physical health, future plans and moving on, and causes of illness and crime. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Service users are willing to be involved in setting research priorities for mental health services. Through non-tokenistic PPI, service users can uniquely shape the research agenda of mental health services.
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.