ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2024
What matters to magistrates when considering diversion into mental health treatment?
Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diversion into mental health treatment: a survey of magistrates and treatment plans.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to identify factors that influence the likelihood of mental health diversion under s.32 and s.33 of the NSW Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act using a sample of 2,922 individuals represented by NSW Legal Aid who sought to have their charges dismissed. Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify the factors correlated with diversion. Higher odds of s.32 diversion were found for women, non-Indigenous defendants, those with no prior court appearances and those who committed less serious offences. Higher odds of s.33 diversion were found for those who were older, those who had been previously imprisoned or those who had prior mental health dismissals. Almost 12% of the variation in s.32 dismissal decisions is attributable to the magistrate hearing the case.
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.