ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2024
Amend the Mental Health Care Act 2017: A Survey of Indian Psychiatrists (Paper 1).
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical practice guidelines for management of schizophrenia in India: A comprehensive overview.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Rethinking and reclaiming psychiatry.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Erratum: Amend the Mental Health Care Act 2017: A Survey of Indian Psychiatrists (Paper 1).Indian journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Amend the Mental Health Care Act 2017: A Survey of Indian psychiatrists (Part 2).Indian journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This paper highlights the difficulties and lacunae in the Mental Health Care Act 2017 that hinder its implementation and use for the care and treatment of persons with mental illness in India. Methods: An online nationwide survey, involving structured questions as well as open-ended questions, to elicit the level of implementation, experience in complying with the provisions of the Act, and level of satisfaction, of practicing psychiatrists was carried out. Responses were analyzed using appropriate statistics. Results: 600 respondents answered the online questionnaire. A majority of psychiatrists were senior practitioners with over 10 years of experience. 92.5% respondents were dissatisfied with the MHCA, wherein 73.3% wanted it amended, and 19.2% asked for repeal. Procedural issues were deterrent for 66.5% from taking medically necessary or helpful decisions for patients. Non-implementation of the Act was a major finding. Major dissatisfaction was expressed regarding judicial over reach in admission and discharge procedures, inclusion of general hospital psychiatry units in the definition of mental health establishment, non-applicability of provisions like advance directive and nominated representative in Indian setting, and that all treatment should be covered under insurance. Conclusion: The Act in its present form defies the spirit of its own objectives and is unimplementable. It needs major revisions.
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.