# Racialised experience of detention under the Mental Health Act: a photovoice investigation

## TL;DR

This study explores how racialized individuals experience compulsory mental health treatment in the UK and highlights the need for more supportive and trauma-informed care.

## Contribution

The study introduces a lived experience logic model to address systemic issues in coercive mental health care for racialized populations.

## Key findings

- Participants reported dismissive and hostile responses from professionals, leading to distress and stigmatization.
- There is a need for trauma-informed support, family involvement, and better information about care options to reduce coercive treatment.
- Practitioners lack essential skills to care for racialized and traumatised individuals subjected to compulsory treatment.

## Abstract

The rates of compulsory admission and treatment (CAT) are rising in mental health systems in the UK. Persistent disparities have been reported among migrants, and black and ethnic minorities in Europe and North America for decades. Lived experience data can provide novel insights to reduce coercive care.

We purposively sampled people within 2 years of receiving CAT, to maximise diversity by age, sex, ethnicity and different ‘sections’ of the Mental Health Act (England and Wales) from eight health systems in England. Using participatory photovoice workshops, we assembled images, captions and reflective narratives, which were transcribed and subjected to thematic and intersectional analyses. The interpretation privileged lived experiences of participants and peer researchers alongside the research team. Preventive insights informed a logic model to reduce CAT.

Forty-eight ethnically diverse people contributed over 500 images and 30 hours of recorded narratives. A significant proportion of participants reported multimorbidity, adverse childhood experiences and carer roles. Their experiences indicated insufficient co-ordination to prevent CAT despite early help seeking; they were not taken seriously or believed when seeking help. Dismissive responses and even hostility from professionals and unnecessary police involvement were distressing, stigmatising and risked criminalisation. Participants wanted more (a) advocacy given in crisis, (b) trauma-informed therapeutic and creative support from inpatient into community settings, (c) family and carer involvement and (d) more information about how to negotiate care options, appeals, restriction and seclusion. Practitioners were felt to lack the essential skills to care for racialised and traumatised people subjected to CAT.

We propose a lived experience logic model for the practice, policy and legislative solutions to reduce epistemic injustice, CAT and criminalising care.