Service users’ experiences of mental health treatment requirements
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Exploring service users’ experiences of engaging with mental health treatment requirements: An interpretative phenomenological analysis
IRAS ID
344521
Contact name
Elizabeth Perkins
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Liverpool
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 9 months, 1 days
Research summary
Increased awareness of the relationship between mental health and offending has resulted in the reintroduction of Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTR) orders (Walker & Griffiths, 2023). MHTR were originally introduced into the Criminal Justice Act in 2003 before being amended in 2005 (Walker & Griffiths, 2023). This order is one of thirteen potential treatment orders that can be included as part of an individual’s suspended order sentence or community order (Callender et al., 2023). MHTR may be included in an individual’s community order if they are experiencing low-to-medium severity mental health difficulties that can be managed in primary care settings (Molyneaux et al., 2021). If the individual consents to psychological therapy, an initial assessment is completed, followed by up to 12 individual therapy sessions (NHS England, 2022). Attendance at these sessions is not a legal requirement, although attendance is overseen by the probation service (Long et al., 2018).
While some evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of MHTR, this community order is underutilised (Forrester & Hopkin, 2019). Issues such as service users’ concerns about the stigma associated with mental health difficulties and professionals’ uncertainty about who should receive the order have potentially contributed to this (Butler & Ledwith, 2021). Another reason for the low uptake may be that the order is perceived as coercive if there is fear of repercussions should the service user disengage (Hacthel et al., 2019). This may make service users feel compelled to engage, even though attendance is not a legal requirement (Fowler et al., 2020). There is limited understanding of service users’ experiences of engaging with MHTR, what they hope to gain, and how they experience therapy within a legal framework. This study aims to explore these issues in depth and develop an improved understanding of how this community order could be used more effectively moving forward.
REC name
East Midlands - Leicester South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
24/EM/0266
Date of REC Opinion
30 Dec 2024
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion