ArticleBMJ mental health2025
Patient engagement in forensic mental health care: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing forensic patient-oriented research guidelines: a rapid review using an integrated knowledge translation approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Nurses' Perceptions of the Scope of Nursing Support for Offense-Related Self-Reflection Beyond Formal Programs and Dedicated Interviews in Japanese Forensic Psychiatric Care.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Editorial: Motivational interviewing in forensic settings.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Optimism, ambivalence, and opportunities: staff perspectives signaling a critical turn in patient-oriented research in forensic mental health care settings.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
questionThis scoping review aimed to examine the state of research on patient engagement in forensic mental health (FMH) care to inform future research, practice and policy development. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO and EBSCO from database inception to June 2024, supplemented by grey literature and reviews. We analysed the included studies descriptively and narratively.
findingsOf the 7010 records retrieved, 73 studies were included. Research on patient engagement in FMH has increased since 1999, with all studies conducted in high-income countries and the majority (64%) employing qualitative designs. The focus was primarily on risk assessment and management, recovery and therapeutic or medication interventions. Most patient participants were male, white and diagnosed with schizophrenia, personality disorders or substance use disorders. Nurses were the major staff participants. The levels of engagement were typically involvement and collaboration. Commonly reported outcomes were a sense of engagement and risks of violence and aggression. We identified barriers and potential strategies for patient engagement across five levels: patient, staff, process, organisational and sociopolitical. Barriers to patient engagement included, but were not limited to, patients' mental health conditions, paternalistic staff attitudes and power imbalances. Potential strategies to enhance patient engagement were identified, such as the adoption of recovery-oriented care models.
conclusionsPatient engagement in FMH is hindered by multilevel barriers, requiring coordinated efforts from policymakers, organisational leaders, professionals and patients to facilitate its integration into routine practice. Greater attention is needed to ensure the meaningful engagement of marginalised populations and patients from low and middle-income countries.
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.