ArticleBJPsych open2024
Legislation and policy for involuntary mental healthcare across countries in the FOSTREN network: rationale, development of mapping survey and protocol.
Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Involuntary Clozapine Treatment: A Systematic Review.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- How does European mental health legislation promote autonomy for those in involuntary care? A comparative descriptive analysis of 27 countries.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Article
- Availability and restrictiveness of community treatment orders across 33 European countries.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Mental health laws in Africa: Perspectives from Cabo Verde, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Staff Attitude Towards Coercive Measures in Hospital and Community Psychiatric Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral countries are currently revising or have already revised their mental health laws to align with the global movement to reduce the use of coercive care. No government has yet fully implemented the recommendation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to eliminate the use of coercion in mental healthcare. Consequently, the international field of mental health law and policy is in a degree of flux.
aimsTo describe the rationale, development and protocol for a project that will map and examine how mental health laws, policies and service capacity across European countries relate to the use of coercive measures, including involuntary admissions and treatment, restraints and seclusion. This will help to better understand the current situation and explore future directions of policies regarding coercive care.
methodThe project is being carried out under the purview of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action network, entitled FOSTREN (Fostering and Strengthening Approaches to Reducing Coercion in European Mental Health Services). A multidisciplinary group of experts developed a comprehensive survey assessing mental health laws, policies and service frameworks, based on World Health Organization and UNCRPD recommendations. The survey was piloted in three countries, revised and disseminated to 30 FOSTREN country representatives. The survey will provide data for three strands of work on legislation, policies and service-level context. A comprehensive evaluation will be conducted, drawing on findings from all work packages.
conclusionsThe project could inform the development of strategies, interventions and legislation to address gaps and promote compliance with international standards.
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.