Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34099085›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2021

Managing returns to prison from medium-secure services: qualitative study.

Sarah-Jayne Leonard, Caroline Sanders, Jennifer J Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2021. 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

3 authors.

Sarah-Jayne LeonardOffender Health Research Network, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1729-0556
Caroline SandersNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, UK.
Jennifer J ShawCentre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about factors that influence discharge decision-making for people admitted to medium-secure services from prison, particularly for those who are returned to prison following treatment.

aimsTo explore the organisational influences on care pathways through medium-secure services for those admitted from prison.

methodWe recruited 24 clinicians via purposive and snowball sampling; 13 shared their experiences via a focus group, and 11 shared their experiences via individual semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was conducted, producing three overarching themes: maintenance of throughput and service provision, class of two systems, and desirable and undesirable patients.

resultsData indicated external factors that direct and, at times, limit clinicians' pathway decisions, including commissioning criteria and legal status under the Mental Health Act 1983 and within the criminal courts system (i.e. whether on remand or sentenced). These factors also influence how clinicians view the role and function of medium-secure services within the wider forensic mental health system, and therefore the types of patients that are deemed 'appropriate' for continued treatment when making discretionary pathway decisions.

conclusionsThere remains a deficit in adequate resources to meet the mental health needs of prisoners who are admitted to medium-secure services. To meet the clinical need of all admissions, criteria for prolonged treatment in medium-secure services needs to be reconsidered, and it is likely that provision for the medium-secure hospital estate will need to increase substantially if effective rehabilitation of those who transfer from prison is to take place.

Indexed as

Forensic mental health servicesoffender pathwayprison mental healthsecure services

Identifiers

PMID34099085
PMCPMC8220853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.