ArticleJournal of psychiatric and mental health nursing2026
Allyship in Psychiatric and Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis.
Article in Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPsychiatric and mental health services have been increasingly scrutinized for sustaining coercive and epistemically unjust practices. Allyship, conceptualized as a commitment to power redistribution, has emerged as a strategy to address such injustices.
aimThe aim of this study is to map the literature and current state of knowledge regarding allyship in psychiatry and mental health.
methodA scoping review was carried out. Tirthy-four (n = 34) reports were subjected to a descriptive and thematic analysis.
resultsThe analysis of the literature identifies four interrelated and complementary themes characterizing allyship: (1) the scope of allyship in mental health, (2) its general principles, (3) the qualities expressed by allies and (4) their repertoire of actions. DISCUSSION: Reviewed studies depict allies as reflexive agents aware of their privilege and advocating for patients. However, findings reveal ethical tensions between performative and effective allyship, with risks of reinforcing paternalistic structures rather than dismantling them. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The results highlight the ethical responsibility of psychiatric and mental health professionals to resist mere symbolic or performative allyship. RECOMMENDATIONS: This synthesis underscores the ethical imperative to anchor allyship in principles of social justice, epistemic humility, and mutual emancipation. RELEVANCE TO MENTAL HEALTH NURSING: Allyship has been the subject of significant debate in psychiatric nursing. The results of this review inform nursing practice by identifying the principles, qualities, and defining actions of individuals who seek to become and act as allies. The findings presented also outline avenues for action aimed at adapting educational curricula to incorporate key dimensions of allyship, including the recognition of privilege, the redistribution of power, and epistemic humility. Finally, this scoping review serves as a caution against the uncritical use of the ally concept, to avoid the erasure of its political foundations.
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.