Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39295429›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2024

Legislation and policy for involuntary mental healthcare across countries in the FOSTREN network: rationale, development of mapping survey and protocol.

Deborah Oyine Aluh, Tella Lantta, Tânia Lourenço, Søren Fryd Birkeland, Giulio Castelpietra, Jovo Dedovic, José Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, Jorun Rugkåsa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Involuntary Clozapine Treatment: A Systematic Review.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Deborah Oyine AluhLisbon Institute of Global Mental Health, Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, Portugal; and Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6939-5547
Tella LanttaDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Finland; and Centre for Forensic Behaviour Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia.
Tânia LourençoCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS@RISE), NursID - Innovation & Development in Nursing, Portugal; and Nursing Department, Escola Superior de Enfermagem de São José de Cluny, Portugal.
Søren Fryd BirkelandOPEN Research Unit, Odense Universitetshospital, Denmark; and Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Giulio CastelpietraCommunity Psychiatry Service, Department Adult 2, Centre Neuchâtelois de Psychiatrie, Switzerland.
Jovo DedovicAddiction Department, Special Psychiatric Hospital Dobrota Kotor, Montenegro.
José Miguel Caldas-de-AlmeidaLisbon Institute of Global Mental Health, Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, Portugal.
Jorun RugkåsaHealth Services Research Unit (HØKH), Akershus University Hospital, Norway; Department of Mental Health Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway; and Centre for Care Research, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5842-2845

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology CA19133
6 · The paper itself

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

CoercionEuropemental health legislationpoliciesUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Identifiers

PMID39295429
PMCPMC11457212

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.