ReviewJournal of psychiatric and mental health nursing2025
Safeguarding Experiences of People in Mental Distress, Police and Healthcare Practitioners: An Integrative Review.
Review in Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 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
introductionGlobally, there is demand on police and emergency health services to respond to people in mental distress. Research at this intersect has focused on decriminalisation of people with severe mental health disorders, police custody care or interagency collaborative models. There is little understanding of the experiences of stakeholders where mental distress is not associated with a severe mental disorder or criminal offence.
aimTo determine current knowledge about safeguarding of people in mental distress supported by police and healthcare practitioners.
methodA rigorous integrative review with 10 databases was searched January 2002 to January 2024.
resultsThe search filtered 12,451 titles and abstracts with 41 full-text articles appraised. Three overarching themes emerged: Safeguarding and care experiences of people in mental distress; intoxication, self-harm and aggression; professional perspectives and responses to people in mental distress. DISCUSSION: Experiences are varied. Whilst there is evidence of compassion, many reported negative experiences when self-harm and intoxication are involved, inconsistent professional responses and gaps in emergency police and mental health systems. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Unscheduled care and community mental health nurses have a vital role to play in identifying and influencing interdisciplinary gaps in out-of-hours emergency health and police processes to support people in mental distress to prevent repetitive distress cycles. This calls for an urgent re-imagining of unscheduled care mental health pathways, Specifically, where practice gaps impact on people who are intoxicated yet do not require inpatient care. RELEVANCE TO MENTAL HEALTH NURSING (FOR PEER REVIEWERS AND EDITORS ONLY): People in mental distress (PiMD) who come to police attention often require an interdisciplinary response. Unscheduled care and community mental health nurses play a key role in this support. This integrative review suggests there are systems gaps and variety in mental health and policing practice for PiMD, particularly for those who are intoxicated and/or who do not need inpatient care. Some PiMD experience cyclical, and at times, undignified and unsafe care. These gaps should be addressed through service redesign and sharing of evidence across disciplines whilst listening to and responding to perspectives of those experiencing mental distress in our communities.
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.