ArticleCurationis2025
Mental health care practitioners' understanding of the policy guideline on 72-hour assessment.
Article in Curationis, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary Mental Health Care Users (MHCUs) are implemented in respect of involuntary MHCUs who need mental health care, treatment and rehabilitation services. Currently, there is poor implementation of the policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary MHCUs. This includes MHCUs staying beyond 72-hour assessment period and being exposed to infringement and violation of their rights.
objectivesThis study explored and described the Mental Health Care Practitioners' (MHCPs) understanding of the current practice of the policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary MHCUs in South Africa.
methodA qualitative, exploratory, descriptive research design was followed. Participants comprised of MHCPs and were purposively sampled, while data were gathered through Focus Group Discussions utilising Microsoft Teams. Data analysis employed the six steps of thematic analysis to assess data, generate themes and categories presented concurrently with MHCPs direct quotations.
resultsThree themes emerged after data analysis namely, (1) MHCPs' understanding of the policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary MHCUs; (2) MHCPs' challenges with the policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary MHCUs; and (3) MHCPs' suggestions to strengthen the policy guidelines on 72-hour assessment of involuntary MHCUs.
conclusionThe findings of the study indicated that there should be well-trained administrators, qualified MHCPs, appropriate infrastructure, and community and family involvement to ensure proper implementation of the 72-hour policy guidelines.Contribution: This study highlights that with the proper implementation of the 72-hour policy guidelines, MHCU rights can be protected, therefore contributing to proper mental illness management.
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.