ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Optimism, ambivalence, and opportunities: staff perspectives signaling a critical turn in patient-oriented research in forensic mental health care settings.
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, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This qualitative descriptive study examines the views of 25 clinicians, clinical leaders, and senior hospital leaders about forensic patient-oriented research (POR) practices and the inclusion of patients as research partners in forensic mental health care environments. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed inductively using thematic analysis to pinpoint predominant themes. Perspectives on forensic POR materialized across three attitudinal domains: optimism, ambivalence, and opportunities. Findings underscore positive overtures toward including patient voices in research and consensual support for forensic POR, despite obvious structural and organizational barriers, power inequities, risks of tokenism, and epistemic concerns inherent in forensic settings. Many agreed that this 'shiny new object' is worth exploring, despite still being an emerging approach in secure environments. We discuss how the findings align with current literature about staff perspectives on participatory research and more critical approaches in Critical Disability and Mad Studies and conclude with recommendations for future research.
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.