↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ perspectives of involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act 2001 in Ireland

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ perspectives of involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act 2001 in Ireland
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/inm.12270
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siobhán Smyth, Dympna Casey, Adeline Cooney, Agnes Higgins, David McGuinness, Emma Bainbridge, Mary Keys, Irina Georgieva, Liz Brosnan, Claire Beecher, Brian Hallahan, Colm McDonald, Kathy Murphy

Abstract

There is international interest in, and continued concern about, the potential long-term impact of involuntary admission to psychiatric institutions, and the effect this coercive action has on a person's well-being and human rights. Involuntary detention in hospital remains a controversial process that involves stakeholders with competing concerns and who often describe negative experiences of the process, which can have long-lasting effects on the therapeutic relationship with service users. The aim of the present study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the involuntary admission and detention of people under the Mental Health Act 2001 in Ireland. Focus groups were used to collect data. Stakeholders interviewed were service users, relatives, general practitioners, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, solicitors, tribunal members, and police. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach. Three key categories emerged: (i) getting help; (ii) detention under the Act; and (iii) experiences of the tribunal process. This research highlights gaps in information and uncertainty about the involuntary admission process for stakeholders, but particularly for service users who are most affected by inadequate processes and supports. Mental health law has traditionally focussed on narrower areas of detention and treatment, but human rights law requires a greater refocussing on supporting service users to ensure a truly voluntary approach to care. The recent human rights treaty, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is to guarantee a broad range of fundamental rights, such as liberty and integrity, which can be affected by coercive processes of involuntary admission and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 32 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 31 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,179,809
of 25,501,527 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
#293
of 1,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,361
of 321,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,501,527 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.