ArticleCurationis2024
Mental Health Review Board Members' understanding of the policy guideline on 72-hour assessment.
Article in Curationis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Mental Health Care Act (No 17 of 2002) promotes the involvement of Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) members in the oversight, execution and evaluation of assessments and admissions of individuals in accordance with the 72-h policy guidelines. However, the MHRB experiences dissatisfaction with the implementation of policy guidelines on 72-h assessment of involuntary Mental Health Care Users (MHCUs).
objectivesThis study explores and describes the MHRB members' understanding of the policy guidelines on 72-h assessment of involuntary MHCUs in South Africa.
methodA qualitative exploratory, descriptive and contextual research design was used. Data were collected using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) from MHRB from three provinces of South Africa, namely North West, Northern Cape and Gauteng. Three FGDs involving a total of 13 participants were conducted.
resultsThree themes emerged from the data, namely: MHRBs' understanding of the policy guideline on 72-h assessment of involuntary MHCUs, MHRBs' challenges with the policy guideline on 72-h assessment of involuntary MHCUs and MHRBs' recommendations to strengthen the implementation of policy guideline on 72-h assessment of involuntary MHCUs.
conclusionCertain issues regarding dissatisfaction related to improper implementation of the 72-h policy guideline persist. Therefore, MHRB recommends that there should be skilled Mental Health Care Practitioners, adequate infrastructure, community involvement, and family and stakeholder collaboration to improve care towards the involuntary MHCUs.Contribution: The study illustrated there is a need to strengthen the implementation of 72-h assessment of involuntary MHCUs through ensuring enough human resources, designated facilities and involvement of the community as raised by the MHRBs.
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.