ArticleIndustrial psychiatry journal
Perspectives of psychiatrists on Mental Health Care Act, 2017: An in-depth pilot survey.
Article in Industrial psychiatry journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Mental Health Care Act, 2017 (MHCA, 17) was passed through both houses of the parliament. The Indian Psychiatric Society through its Patient's Rights Task Force committee has been deliberating various rounds of discussion at levels of stakeholders, mental health professionals, and patients' perspective. However, a scarce budget for mental health services, lack of trained mental health professionals, and poor infrastructure and logistics pose a challenge for this new act as still there is a lack of awareness of different provisions of MHCA at the administrative, judiciary, and public levels. Aim: The present study was undertaken to address the perspectives of psychiatrists related to MHCA,2017 its provisions. Materials and Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was designed to gather information on awareness about MHCA, 2017. The responses were collected from the member psychiatrists of Indian Psychiatric Society in a google form including the suggestions regarding amendments in MHCA, 2017. Results: 22.6% of participants were using MHCA in clinical practice completely, and 20.2% did not use it all. 52.4% stated that they are using it partly. Capacity assessment of the person suffering from mental illness was done by 52.4% of participants in day-to-day clinical practice. 35.7% denied assessing it. With respect to section 309 IPC, 31% were registering and managing suicide attempts as medico legal cases and 63.1% as non-MLC cases. 54.2% of the participants were not aware about medical insurance for mental health. The qualitative data suggest the act should be simplified including relaxation in provisions of minor, capacity assessment and ensure active functioning of various authorities. Conclusions: Amendments are required in MHCA, 2017 taking into cognizance the opinions from various practicing psychiatrists who are facing hurdles in routine clinical practice.
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.