No abstract

Participant representativeness and statistical power are crucial elements of robust research with human participants, both of which relate to the successful recruitment of research participants. Nevertheless, such core features may often not be fully reported or duly considered in psychiatric research. Building on our experiences of collecting data in the context of forensic mental health services, we discuss issues regarding participant recruitment and representativeness in our field with its particular characteristics. A quick sampling and brief overview of the literature in four specialized forensic mental health journals is presented, demonstrating that published manuscripts rarely describe the data in sufficient detail for the reader to assess sample representativeness and statistical power. This lack of transparency leads not only to difficulties in interpreting the research; it also entails risks relating to the already meager evidence base of forensic mental health services being relevant only to a subset of patients. Accordingly, we provide suggestions for increased transparency in reporting and improved recruitment of research participants. We also discuss the balance of ethical considerations pertinent to the pursuit of increased participation rates in forensic mental health research.

This paper presents an in-depth interview study with individuals who are at the same time patients in forensic psychiatric services, and parties in recurring mental health law proceedings (MHLPs). While previous studies have highlighted issues with the rule of law that can arise when MHLPs prioritize concern for the mental health of the patient over the stringent test of the legal rights of the party, this paper seeks to bring to the fore the potential pitfalls it presents in terms of distress to patients. Drawing on qualitative interview analyses, we untangle the apparent paradox of MHLPs being described in the literature as both guided by concern for patients'/parties' mental well-being and as distressing. We tentatively raise the question of whether MHLPs might risk being distressing to the patient/party, not despite of but in part because of court actors' efforts to the contrary.