“No Safe Place to Call”: Perspectives and Experiences of Access to Mental Health Services by People Found not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing role of the justice system in the care of individuals with mental illness has led to concerns about access to adequate and timely mental health services, particularly for persons with severe mental illness whose behaviors increase their risk of justice involvement. This study investigated the perceptions of people found not criminally responsible, their loved ones, peer support workers, and other mental health professionals and managers regarding access to effective and relevant mental health services. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 25 participants, and data analyses were carried out according using thematic analysis. The findings highlighted how past experiences of stigma, trauma, inefficiency, and discrimination within a hospital-centric system influenced service users' and caregivers' ability to seek and engage with care. Current access mechanisms, such as police intervention and emergency room visits, were described as unacceptable and often viewed as options of last resort. Consequently, service users frequently entered the healthcare system only when their needs had escalated in complexity, making them difficult to address within the scope of standard clinical practice. Implications for policy and service organization are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".