ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Institutional Abuse, Neglect and Harm in UK Community Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Peer-Reviewed Evidence.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critically Exploring Self-Harm Through Lived Experience Perspectives: A Survivor-Controlled Integrative Review Employing Participatory Methodology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Review
- Conceptualising trauma in eating disorders: a reflexive commentary on the role of neglect, iatrogenic harm, and epistemic injury.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Institutional Abuse, Neglect and Harm in UK Community Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Peer-Reviewed Evidence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStatutory guidance relating to the prevention of institutional abuse, neglect and harm does not reflect the contemporary organisation of UK community mental health services. Historical associations with inpatient and residential settings have created a practice and conceptual gap despite lived experience testimony, inquiries and media reports attesting to the phenomena in community mental health services.
aimTo describe the peer-reviewed evidence on the phenomena of institutional abuse and neglect associated with harm in UK community mental health services for adults of working age.
methodsWe searched nine indexed databases for primary and secondary research (any methodology), theoretical papers and commentaries published between 2000 and 2025. We extracted and charted papers' substantive characteristics and findings, and conducted a descriptive synthesis to identify the phenomena's characteristics and potential causal factors.
findingsTwenty-two papers met inclusion criteria, consisting of primary research utilising qualitative or observational methods (n = 12), secondary research (n = 6), lived experience narratives (n = 3) and a community consultation (n = 1). Institutional neglect was the principal phenomenon described, with gaps and inadequacies in accessing institutional provisions a primary mechanism. Associated harms included suicide, homicide and psychological harms. People diagnosed with a personality disorder, labelled 'hard to engage' and who self-harm were amongst the population affected. Inter-related potential causal factors spanned national, institutional and individual levels, with resources a primary factor.
conclusionsOur scoping review advances conceptual knowledge about the characteristics and potential causal factors of institutional abuse, neglect and harm in UK community mental health services. This provides a robust foundation for future research endeavours to inform safeguarding and patient safety policy and practice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The review was conceptualised, led and conducted by lived experience researchers who are current and/or previous users of mental health services. A Lived Experience Advisory Group (LEAG) was involved in the review's synthesis, manuscript preparation and are review authors.
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.