Professional experiences on use of the mental health act in ethnically diverse populations: a photovoice study.

0 PSYCHIATRY BMJ mental health Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1136/bmjment-2024-301406
Kamaldeep Bhui, Roisin Mooney, Doreen Joseph, Rose McCabe, Karen Newbigging, Paul McCrone, Raghu Raghavan, Frank Keating, Nusrat Husain
{"title":"Professional experiences on use of the mental health act in ethnically diverse populations: a photovoice study.","authors":"Kamaldeep Bhui, Roisin Mooney, Doreen Joseph, Rose McCabe, Karen Newbigging, Paul McCrone, Raghu Raghavan, Frank Keating, Nusrat Husain","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2024-301406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are long-standing ethnic and racial inequalities in experiences and outcomes of severe mental illness, including compulsory admission and treatment (CAT).</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To gather professional experiences about (1) remedies for ethnic inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act ((MHA) 1983 and 2007) and (2) recommendations for improving care experiences and for reducing ethnic inequalities.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We undertook a participatory research process using photovoice to gather experience data. Photographs were assembled and narrated by 17 professionals from a variety of disciplines. We undertook a thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ineffective communications between inpatient and community services, insufficient staff capacity, a lack of continuity of care and language and cultural constraints meant MHA assessments were lacking information, leading to elevated perceptions of risk. Practitioners felt helpless at times of staff shortages and often felt CAT could have been prevented. They felt voiceless and powerless and unable to challenge stereotypes and poor practice, especially if they were from a similar demographic (ethnicity) as a patient. Interdisciplinary disagreements and mistrust led to more risk-aversive practices. The legislation created an inflexible, risk-averse and defensive process in care. Police involvement added to concerns about criminalisation and stigma. There were more risk-averse practices when team members and families disagreed on care plans. More rehabilitation and recovery-orientated care are needed. Legislative compliance in a crisis conflicted with supportive and recovery-orientated care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clear standards are needed, including specific protocols for MHA assessment, police interactions, alternatives to admission, early intervention and continuity of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There are long-standing ethnic and racial inequalities in experiences and outcomes of severe mental illness, including compulsory admission and treatment (CAT).

Aims: To gather professional experiences about (1) remedies for ethnic inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act ((MHA) 1983 and 2007) and (2) recommendations for improving care experiences and for reducing ethnic inequalities.

Method: We undertook a participatory research process using photovoice to gather experience data. Photographs were assembled and narrated by 17 professionals from a variety of disciplines. We undertook a thematic analysis.

Results: Ineffective communications between inpatient and community services, insufficient staff capacity, a lack of continuity of care and language and cultural constraints meant MHA assessments were lacking information, leading to elevated perceptions of risk. Practitioners felt helpless at times of staff shortages and often felt CAT could have been prevented. They felt voiceless and powerless and unable to challenge stereotypes and poor practice, especially if they were from a similar demographic (ethnicity) as a patient. Interdisciplinary disagreements and mistrust led to more risk-aversive practices. The legislation created an inflexible, risk-averse and defensive process in care. Police involvement added to concerns about criminalisation and stigma. There were more risk-averse practices when team members and families disagreed on care plans. More rehabilitation and recovery-orientated care are needed. Legislative compliance in a crisis conflicted with supportive and recovery-orientated care.

Conclusion: Clear standards are needed, including specific protocols for MHA assessment, police interactions, alternatives to admission, early intervention and continuity of care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital sleep phenotype and wrist actigraphy in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis and people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Professional experiences on use of the mental health act in ethnically diverse populations: a photovoice study. Will things feel better in the morning? A time-of-day analysis of mental health and wellbeing from nearly 1 million observations. A qualitative study exploring the feasibility and acceptability of computerised adaptive testing to assess and monitor children and young people's mental health in primary care settings in the UK. Minimally important change on the Columbia Impairment Scale and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in youths seeking mental healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1