Realist evaluation of police and mental health crises, Version 1.0
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Police involvement in inter-agency crisis mental health first response pathways in England: A realist and cost consequence analysis. PIONEER-MH.
IRAS ID
338641
Contact name
Iain McKinnon
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
https://osf.io/9wd8n/ , Open Science Frameowrk
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 2 months, 30 days
Research summary
International evidence highlights the extent and complexity of police encounters with people experiencing mental health problems. Recent policy and legal changes include improved collaborative working, changes to the Mental Health Act, and the “Right Care Right Person” (RCRP) policing initiative. It is unclear what impact these changes will have on Mental Health Trusts, Ambulance Services, voluntary sector services, and individuals in crisis situations. There is a need for a detailed understanding of how these interfaces work, for whom and in what circumstances including their effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
Aim: To understand and evaluate the implementation, delivery, costs, and outcomes of community multi-agency first response mental health crisis pathways in England in response to the policing strategy RCRP.
Methods: A mixed methods realist study will evaluate multi-agency first response mental health crisis pathways in four study sites in England, selected for variation according to population, rates of emergency detention and different service configurations.
Workstream 1 will develop Initial Programme Theories (IPTs) through analysis of key documents, n=15 individual interviews with staff and service user/carers in each of four study sites (total n= 60) and two stakeholder workshops (total n=40).
Workstream 2a- Interrupted Time series analysis of routine data (not for ethical review at this stage)
Workstream 2b Causal relationships between context, mechanism, and outcome will be explored in-depth through realist interviews and focus groups with a maximum sample in each study site of n=40 staff and service users/carers (total across sites n=160).
Workstream 3- Cost Consequence Analysis (does not require ethical review).
Quantitative data required for workstreams 2a will be identified within the qualitative workstreams (1 and 2b) and any additional ethics processes will be followed for the quantitative aspects of the study at a later point. Workstream 3 has no new participants or data and does not therefore require ethical review.
REC name
North East - Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
25/NE/0159
Date of REC Opinion
5 Sep 2025
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion