ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Establishing standards of care for forensic mental health: an international Delphi consensus-building study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "What about that violence?" Transforming the discourse on violence in mental health research and services.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The present study aimed to establish a consensus on a definition of forensic mental health systems and services, and to identify principles and components of forensic mental health systems. Methods: A Delphi consensus-building process was employed among 23 experts in forensic mental health, defined by lived experience of forensic mental health services, professional, clinical or management practice in forensic settings, or academic research in the field. Items were rated on a 9-point Likert scale, with consensus defined as ≥75% of panelists rating an item between 7 and 9. Across three Delphi rounds, items were revised, merged, or added based on participant feedback. Data were collected anonymously using LimeSurvey, with reminders sent to maximize participation, followed by a structured consensus meeting to resolve remaining areas of disagreement. Results: The final consensus statement comprises three components: (1) a definition of forensic mental health services; (2) a general statement including 12 guiding principles; and (3) 43 core components organized across 10 thematic domains addressing models of care, pathways and processes, programs and activities, physical health, service user and peer involvement, evaluation and improvement, service integration, safe environments, restrictive practices, and other system-level considerations. While all items achieved consensus at the consensus meeting, areas of sustained discussion related to the integration of cultural expertise, the inclusion of a lived experience workforce, and the distinction between descriptive and aspirational elements of forensic mental health services. Conclusions: This international consensus statement provides a structured framework for understanding forensic mental health systems. By articulating shared principles and core components while allowing flexibility across jurisdictions, the framework offers a foundation to support service development and evaluation across diverse jurisdictions.
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.