ArticleBJGP open2022
The mental health detention process: a scoping review to inform GP training.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update.BMC psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Mental Health Review Board Members' understanding of the policy guideline on 72-hour assessment.Curationis · 2024Article
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
backgroundGPs are often faced with deciding whether or not a patient may require detention for assessment in hospital under mental health legislation. This can be a complex and daunting process. Despite this, GPs and most other professionals receive limited formal training.
aimTo map and review the current literature on training in mental health detention processes. These insights are vital to inform the further development of meaningful educational approaches. DESIGN &
settingA systematic scoping literature review was conducted to identify what is known about how best to develop training in this area.
methodArksey and O'Malley's framework was used to select, chart, and analyse articles from across six electronic databases. A total of 1136 articles were included in the initial screening phase and 183 articles were included in the full-text screening phase. Key themes were derived using an iterative and thematic approach. A personal and public involvement (PPI) group was set up for this project and other stakeholders in the mental health detention process were consulted about the findings.
resultsFifty-two articles were included in the final review. Professionals consistently highlighted unmet training needs and difficulties with the process. There were identified needs for practical, interdisciplinary training, including discussion of complex cases, and opportunities to learn from those with direct experience.
conclusionThis work is foundational for the development of meaningful educational approaches around mental health detention processes. A strong research base will inform and strengthen training with the ultimate aim of improving patient care.
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.