ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Stigma, race, and testimonial injustice in mental health detention: Professionals experience of Compulsory Assessment and Treatment under The Mental Health Act 1983.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines how stigma, racism, and epistemic injustice shape health and social care professionals' experiences of Compulsory Assessment and Treatment (CAT) within mental health and policing systems, with particular attention to the racialised experiences of Black men. Despite longstanding recognition of institutional racism and structural inequality, the persistent over‑detention of Black men under mental health legislation remains inadequately addressed. This study advances the field by shifting focus from procedural reform to epistemic critique, analysing how credibility, knowledge, and understanding are unevenly distributed, racialised, and denied within CAT practices. Drawing on a multi‑method Experience-Based Co‑Design (EBCD) study, the article reports qualitative findings from interviews with 13 mental health professionals, an EBCD feedback event, and a co‑design workshop involving 46 participants. Centring experiential knowledge, the analysis applies reflexive thematic methods informed by epistemic injustice, Critical Race Theory, stigma inequality, and the Silences Framework. Three themes are identified: (i) Racial Stereotyping and Risk Assessment, (ii) Stigma and the Denial of Care, and (iii) Race Anxiety and Colour-blind Racism. These findings illustrate how racialised framings within CAT generate both testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, silencing Black men's voices and rendering their experiences unintelligible within dominant professional paradigms. The analysis makes a significant scholarly and practical contribution by demonstrating that stigma functions as a structural and institutional logic shaping professional decision‑making. Meaningful change therefore requires systemic transformation, rather than a narrow focus on individual professional attitudes. The article calls for greater epistemic openness, urging professionals to recognise the limits of dominant frameworks and to incorporate lived experience and community‑based knowledge into practice. By reframing mental health and policing practices through an epistemic lens, the study identifies a transformative route toward more equitable, accountable, and just systems. Although situated in the UK, the insights have broader relevance for global mental health systems confronting racialised exclusion and structural inequity.
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.