ArticleBMJ mental health2025
Racialised experience of detention under the Mental Health Act: a photovoice investigation.
Article in BMJ mental health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe rates of compulsory admission and treatment (CAT) are rising in mental health systems in the UK. Persistent disparities have been reported among migrants, and black and ethnic minorities in Europe and North America for decades. Lived experience data can provide novel insights to reduce coercive care.
methodsWe purposively sampled people within 2 years of receiving CAT, to maximise diversity by age, sex, ethnicity and different 'sections' of the Mental Health Act (England and Wales) from eight health systems in England. Using participatory photovoice workshops, we assembled images, captions and reflective narratives, which were transcribed and subjected to thematic and intersectional analyses. The interpretation privileged lived experiences of participants and peer researchers alongside the research team. Preventive insights informed a logic model to reduce CAT.
resultsForty-eight ethnically diverse people contributed over 500 images and 30 hours of recorded narratives. A significant proportion of participants reported multimorbidity, adverse childhood experiences and carer roles. Their experiences indicated insufficient co-ordination to prevent CAT despite early help seeking; they were not taken seriously or believed when seeking help. Dismissive responses and even hostility from professionals and unnecessary police involvement were distressing, stigmatising and risked criminalisation. Participants wanted more (a) advocacy given in crisis, (b) trauma-informed therapeutic and creative support from inpatient into community settings, (c) family and carer involvement and (d) more information about how to negotiate care options, appeals, restriction and seclusion. Practitioners were felt to lack the essential skills to care for racialised and traumatised people subjected to CAT.
conclusionsWe propose a lived experience logic model for the practice, policy and legislative solutions to reduce epistemic injustice, CAT and criminalising care.
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.