Table 1.

Data charting form and numerical in-text reference key

Reference	Study aims	Setting and study population	Methodology	Key findings
1. Berzins et al. (2003)	To measure levels and experience of harassment experienced by people with mental health problems in the community in Scotland and compare them with the general population.	Community mental health teams. Sampled from four main areas: cities, towns, peripheral housing estates and scattered rural settlements. People with severe and enduring mental health problems between 25 and 65 years old (people with dementia and homeless people were excluded). In the general population those who has been in contact with mental health services within the past 10 years were excluded.	Mixed methods study (collected quantitative and qualitative data in interview). Purposive sample of mental health group on basis of sampling criteria, matched GP group on the basis of criteria. Face to face structured interview to explore experiences of harassment. Allowance of less-structured responses to explore incidence in more depth. Interview schedules developed through focus groups involving service users from voluntary and statutory services. Information gathered on what harassment consisted of, where it took place, who committed it, why it was felt to be occurring and what impact it had upon them. Comparisons between quant data analysed using chi-squared test, qualitative data analysed using Nudist software.	Participants: 330 people interviewed (165 people with mental health problems and 165 from general population). Detailed demographics included in paper (age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, living status). Findings: 60% of people with mental health problems experienced harassment compared to 44% from general public. (p  =  0.004). Age had significant influence on whether people with mental health problems experienced harassment (not case for general public). Significant relationship between harassment and both groups who lived in local authority accommodation. Features of harassment: verbal abuse most common (those with mental health problems having problems exposed); unwanted interference including false accusation to LA's and telephone calls. Other features included physical threats and actual assaults on occasion. Who was committing it: teenagers and neighbours most common across both groups. Teenagers particularly under influence of parents and peers when verbally abusing people with mental health problems. 21% of people with mental health problems experienced harassment from family whereas none from general public reported from family. This harassment was due to being taken advantage of for welfare benefits or medication. Also called names due to mental health problems. Reasons being harassed: substantial differences. Majority of people with mental problems thought it was because of mental health problems. General public saw it as fulfilling need of harasser (get money or something to do). Reporting harassment: 71% general public reported to police compared to 43% of people with mental health problems. Mental health problems fear will not be taken seriously. Not wanting contact due to negative experiences in past (if under the Mental Health Act 1983). Majority in both groups reported to more than one agency. Mental health group to medical/support staff. Majority in both groups said reporting made no difference. Strategies to stop harassment: 46% mental health group took no action; 30% people from mental health group had moved house whilst 16% tried to reason with harasser. Impact: almost all mental health group referred to adverse effect it had upon their mental health. Half of GP group also experienced adverse effect on mental health. Mental health group more likely to report fear compared to GP group who were annoyed. Prevention: both groups reported education (about mental health problems or of the impact of anti-social behaviour).
2. Chakraborti et al. (2014)	To examine people's experiences of hate, prejudice and targeted hostility; to understand the physical and emotional harms suffered by individuals and their families; and to identify ways of improving the quality of support available to victims.	People over the age of 16 who had experienced hate crime.	Mixed methods approach. Online and hard-copy surveys (translate into eight different languages). In-depth, semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Personal and reflective researcher field diary observations.	Participants: 1106 questionnaires were completed by people over the age of 16. In total134 people identified as disabled from sample of which 28% (37) were targeted because of mental ill-health. 374 victims were interviewed (no idea of number who had mental ill-health). The profile of research participants was extremely diverse in terms of age, gender identity, ethnicity, refugee and asylum status, religion, sexuality and disability. Key findings: 46% of those victimised because of their mental ill-health stated that being a victim of targeted hostility had made them feel suicidal, and 41% had turned to alcohol. 88% of respondents victimised because of their mental ill-health, physical disabilities or learning disabilities were very concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime in the future. 72% of people who reported ill mental health were more likely to feel vulnerable after hate crime committed as opposed to overall sample. Also more likely to feel suicidal after hate crime. Those who were from ethnic minority groups experienced hostility from those who shared same ethnicity or faith as them. This was due to particular identity markers and form of difference. Poor level of support from police was commonly reported because of who they were. Those with a disability (non-mental health specific) were more likely to report crime to other supports i.e. Social workers, nurse or doctor, housing association.
3. Faulkner. (2012)	Giving voice to service users’ fears and concerns about risk Identify additional risks to those commonly identified by professionals and policy-makers Explore differences in perceptions of risks and rights between service users and professionals	Community.	Qualitative research. Sampling: A selection of people through networking programme manager and the author. Individual interviews.	Participants: 17 people include disabled people, older people, people with learning difficulties and people with mental health problems. By observation only, the majority may be described as white British. Two people were Black African Caribbean. Risk of abuse: current awareness of accusations directed at disabled people being ‘benefits scroungers’ or as ‘faking it’. Heightened risk of taking part in community because of hate crime. People with learning difficulties are at particular risk of bullying and abuse in the community. Fear of institutional and interpersonal abuse: mainly within residential settings. Unpleasant treatment, a constant weighing up process as to whether they should speak up about their rights out of fear and who are consequently not receiving the care that is right (e.g. in residential care keeps money that they are entitled to, not getting choice on what you buy, fear of asserting your rights and consequences if you do).
4. Kai & Crosland. (2001)51	To explore experiences and perceptions of healthcare of people with enduring mental ill health.	Four general practices (referring to two consultant psychiatric-led community mental health teams linked to local hospital inpatient unit). Patients with enduring mental health problems. Other inclusion criteria: including inability to fulfil roles such as holding down a job; participating in recreational activities; impairment of social behaviour (hallucinations/delusions; violence towards others and self); a mental health diagnosis; excluded if had dementia or other organic brain disorder, LD or under 16.	Qualitative design Theoretical sampling In-depth interviews- discuss and reflect upon experiences of healthcare. Broad topics were used as prompts. Grounded methodology. Themes were identified by open coding of key categories.	Participants: 32 patients. All receiving continuing care from primary care teams. Selected key themes relevant to scoping review: Experience of social exclusion: taking control of their lives and mental health was jeopardised by experiences of victimisation and crime. Most had experienced victimisation where they lived, attributed to their apparent differences to others. Led to feeling fearful about people finding out about mental health problems. Experience both verbal and physical abuse within their local community. Fear of people finding out led to social isolation. Social isolation exacerbated by fear of crime, reluctance to go out as had experienced of crime and burglary. Contribution of professional care: valued positive therapeutic relationship with professionals within the context of social exclusion and their need to protect their anonymity about their ill mental health (as able to discuss issues/problems).
5. Kelly (1999)	A part of Kelly's thesis (1999) which explored quality of life of peoples with enduring forms of mental illness.	In the community. People who met the criteria for severe and enduring mental illness (the House of Commons Report, 1994).	Mixed methods. Random sampling strategy. Structured questionnaire based on Quality of Life profile (developed and tested for the study) with follow up comments made by participants. Participants interviewed in their own homes.	Participants: 160 respondents. Findings of this discussion paper based upon participants’ responses in relation to one of the components of the QoL structured questionnaire asking people to identify from a list of problems what they have experienced whilst living in the community in the past year namely: broken windows; damp/condensation; mice/rats; poor heating; and harassment. 60% of respondents reported harassment (n  =  100) Experiences ranged from minor (e.g. children knocking on door and running away to more serious being pushed, jostled or threatened.) Acts of harassment categorised into 3 broad themes: Harassment while at home: children and teens banging on their door. Fourteen people reported being subjected to taunts and name-calling while in their own homes (i.e. being sung at from outside their window). Six female respondents reported pornographic material being pushed through their door.One participant reported lit matches being put through their door. Eight reported windows being broken; 15 stones being thrown at windows and doors; 5 reported graffiti (ie. pervert; paedophile). Three found urine or faeces outside their flat; 1 reported bin being emptied outside his flat (followed by complaints by neighbours to council); Perpetrators of home incidents: majority reported as the local children. Some adults and teens. Reasons for harassment: in some instances harassment was carried out to force person out of their house. Children model stigmatising attitudes and behaviours of adults. Giving up tenancy and leaving home due to neighbours’ harassment. Harassment on the street: 12 reported regular harassment for no reason outside of their homes. Often in the form of name-calling; taunting; and sometimes verbal abuse. Seven reported having stones thrown at them or being jostled whilst out running daily errands. Perpetrators: children and also significant proportion carried out by teens and adults. Financial exploitation: Eleven people reported not doing their own shopping because of harassment or inability. People paid between £5 and £10 for others to do their shopping (but were not aware of being able to place a weekly order by telephone free of charge). Four people reported being accosted after picking up benefit claims. Some reported giving money to persistent beggars due to the location of their accommodation. Seventeen reported neighbours regularly borrowing money or cigarettes and never repaying. Several reported using unofficial home-help services that were above good value. Most blatant financial exploitation was by female neighbours who befriended male and got him to buy register for a mail order catalogue. They ran up a large bill and never repaid him. Reporting harassment: some noted how they chose to ignore harassment as ‘it would make it worse’. Reluctance to report harassment. Also did not report it to police as the culprits run away and return when police leave not prepared to report to police or mental health professionals as they would not be believed or they would think they was ill again. 1 man chose not to report to police because the only contact he had with them was when being escorted to hospital (previous negative experiences). Majority are prepared to suffer harassment in silence. Coping mechanisms: avoid situations likely to experience harassment. Reclusive lifestyle resulting in only leaving house when absolutely necessarily (e.g. one person had not left house in 8 months). Three people said they carried a weapon with them when going out (i.e. pocket knives, sock with a rock in it).
6. Langan & Lindow (2004)	Provide information on the involvement in risk assessment and management of mental health service users who are considered by professionals to pose a risk to other people.	One urban area in England who were inpatients at two hospitals within the same MHT. Inclusion: People who were being discharged from in-patient treatment and moving into the community. Aged between 18–65 years old. Living in set geographical area whom they considered to be a possible risk to others. Exclusion: some service users could not be asked as the service users did not know that they were considered risk to others.	In-depth interview with service users at point of discharge (phase 1), and six months later (phase 2). Purposive sampling, psychiatrists who selected people on the basis of the criteria. At each time point, also interviewed three mental health professionals, as well as a relative and a friend. Professional interviewed included psychiatrists, CPNs, social workers, psychologists, housing workers and day care staff.	Participants: 129 interviews conducted. 17 service users took part (2 female; 4 from ethnic minority group). Only 14 were interviewed at phase 2. Key theme relevant to scoping review: Risk or harm that people experienced from others. Four service users were seen as behaving in ways that increased the risk that they would be attacked by others - for example, preaching to people or being aggressive or confrontational to others when experiencing psychosis. Differences in perceptions of risk: service users reported defending themselves as a result of being provoked rather than making unprovoked threats. The differing accounts revolved around whether this service user was being threatening or trying to protect himself (albeit in a threatening way) due to fear. Insecurity in accommodation: two had been at the receiving end of harassment by neighbours.
7. MIND (2007)	To explore the extent of fear, crime, and victimisation to which people with mental distress are exposed, and to uncover barriers people face in accessing criminal justice agencies.	Voluntary organisations (Mind associations) People with experience of mental distress.	Mixed methods Short questionnaire (both closed and open ended questions) sent to 2000 people. Assessed attitudes towards personal safety and the role of agencies Two focus groups using vignettes. Explored issues of isolation, exploitation, protection and empowerment and the role of social workers and other agencies to keep people safe from abuse.	Participants: 84 completed surveys (response rate of 3.6%); 10 participants took part in a focus group (five in each) and were mixed in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis. Survey key findings: 84% felt vulnerable or at risk of abuse some or all of the time. Only 16% did not feel at risk. Anecdotal evidence of abuse perpetrated by: family; friends; neighbours; carers; health professionals; care home staff. 86% respondents felt they were responsible for keeping themselves safe; 55% health professionals; 43% family; 37 and friends; 35% police. Disempowering and excluding from decisions about risk; lack of systematic approach to safeguarding which is dealt with internally (rather than referred to police or SG teams); discrimination at heart of criminal justice system results in abuse not being reported by victims (not believed).
8. Pettitt et al. (2013)	To understand experiences of victimisation and engagement with the criminal justice system among people with mental health problems.	Community mental health services in London. People with severe mental illness (SMI) based in community mental health teams (CMHTs) for one year or over. 18–65 years old with any diagnosis. Care needed to be planned using Care Programme Approach. Excluded those whose were too ill to consent and whose English language was limited. Those from general population over the age of 16 living in London.	Mixed methods research study. Random sampling strategy for quant research in local London MH Trusts. For qual, invitations were circulated to individuals who had been a victim of crime in the past 3 years. Recruited from local Mind and Victim Support services as well as CMHTs. Quantitative survey- computer based questionnaires modified version of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) was used. Compared to that of the general population who took part in the survey over the same period of time in London. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with service users. Data analysed using thematic analysis. Focus groups and interviews also conducted with 30 relevant professional from range of different background i.e. police officers and mental health coordinators.	Participants: Quantitative survey: 361 people with SMI responded to the survey. Comparison sample is 3138 people. 60% schizophrenia and 20% bi-polar or depressive disorder. A majority had been ill for more than 10 years and more than half had been admitted under mental health Act1983. Sample was mostly male and Black/Black British ethnicity. Greater personal and area deprivation of 72% v. (43% from comparison) were unemployed 63% (v. 21%) were council tenants 52% (v. 27%) and lived in most deprived areas. Quantitative survey findings (comparisons to general population): Targeted crime: 43% felt crime was motivated by race, age, sex, disability which was 8 times more likely than control group. A majority of crimes took place in the home, followed by public places. 9% described incident happening in health facility. Impact of victimisation: more likely to perceive the crime as serious compared to general population. 98% said they had emotional or mental health problems following the crimes. Also social problems (financial loss/relationship breakdown). More likely to be physically injured but 70% less likely to seek medical help. Disclosure: 45% informed the police themselves compared with 35% of control group (not statistically significant). No difference in progress through criminal justice system however, SMI victims less satisfied and less likely to describe police as respectful. 40% did not disclose their experiences to mental health professionals. A third to disclose experiences to their police or mental health professionals. Help received and wanted: SMI victims 13 times more likely to receive help than those without SMI. Less likely to receive crime prevention advice compared with 35% of control group. Less likely to make changes following events than control group. Most likely to seek support from mental health professionals and family and friends. Unmet needs were most high in seeking practical of financial help (60%), talking help (40%) and help with accessing CJS (40%). Participants: Qualitative interviews: 81 individuals were interviewed. 82% sample lived in London. 57% women and 43% men. 78% were aged between 25 and 54 years. Over half were White British, 22% Black or Black British, 9% Asian, Asian British and 5% White other or White non-British. 17% described themselves as LGB. 23 and described having another disability as well as mental health problem. Only fifth were in unemployed. Half of sample had experienced depression, third anxiety and a third psychosis. Two thirds were accessing support from CMHTs. Quantitative survey findings Types of crime: Commonly experienced assault and harassment. Nine people reported being victims of crime whilst in psychiatric settings and in some cases, the offender were staff. Three fifths of crimes were by people they knew and had existing relationships with. Perceptions of why they were victimised: Because they would not be believed and would be easily discredited. People saw them as vulnerable because of their mental health problems. Targeted Mental health problem used as a basis for abuse, e.g. mocking verbally and displaying prejudice towards their mental health problem. Hate crime: 14 p's described being victims of hate crime. Motivated by hostility or prejudice towards their mental illness. Incidences on wards- imbalance of power between SU and mental health professional made them vulnerable to abuse. Discredited and could block access to help if they complained. Factors helping them to report crimes: decisions being taken out of their hands (someone else alerting police): accessibility of the police; Severity of the crime; A desire to prevent reoccurrence or to protect others Two thirds of sample described negative experiences reporting to the police: fear incident will be escalated; being blamed; lack of empathy/respect; dropping cases; lack of info and communication; not taken seriously; not being believed; poor responses to disclosure of mental health problem; prejudice attitudes towards mental health Three quarters of sample described positive experience from police: positive responses to mental health problems; caring attitude; taking incident seriously; communication; working with other services. Enabling experiences of court: pre-court visits, prep; witness service; special measures; judge/magistrate intervening on their behalf Poor experiences of court: seeing the perpetrator and their family/supported; cross-examination in court; not being able to make their point; long waiting times; not being given special measures’ lack of info after the trial. Enablers to seeking help: presence of support network; current or prior relationships with services; impact of crime as triggers. Barriers to seeking help: fearing response; fear or situation becoming worse; barriers associated with knowing the perpetrator; barriers of services; poor responses by individuals in services; impact of crime as barrier (or emotional and mental health); mental health problems as a barrier. Sources of support: Informal: family friend, partner, neighbours, work colleagues. Services: CMHTs, inpatient teams; GPs; emergency services; social care services; housing services; solicitors; probations services; local councillors/MPs; voluntary/community sector services. Problems with services: inadequate help provided; inappropriate help provided; disempowering or punitive responses; lack of responsiveness of services; complex cases and a lack of effective multi-agency working.
9. Read & Baker (1996)	Investigate discrimination faced by people with mental health problems, and the extent to which it affects their everyday lives.	Community People with mental health problems who are members of local Mind association or similar groups.	Mixed methods study Questionnaires (with closed and open ended questions) sent out to local Mind associations, Mindlink members, and the UKAN network of independent advocacy agencies.	Participants: 778 completed questionnaires. Range of diagnoses including: anxiety, depression, OCD, psychosis, PTSD, agoraphobia, panic attacks, eating disorders, and SADs. 51% women and 49% men. Ages ranged from 18–74. Majority identified their ethnic background as UK (675), others ethnicities included: European, Caribbean, Irish, Indian, Asian and others. Main findings Daily life in public: 47% reported having experienced harassment or abuse in public because of mental health problems. (29% shouted at in street; 21% threatened; 14% physically attacked; 16% forced to leave premises). Daily life at home: 57% were afraid of being attacked in their own homes, with as many actually being harassed (25% in their own homes; 34% outside in immediate neighbourhood) (e.g. of abuse: burgled, lit matches and put in letter box, others had dog faeces, used condoms and abusive letters stuffed through front door). People described being attacked by neighbours, family and friends, landlords, people in authority (police, staff), other patients. 49% had actually been attacked or harassed (21% by neighbours and other tenants; 20% strangers; 7% by landlords). 26% had been forced to move because of harassment. Daily life at work: 38% said they had been harassed and teased at work (16% by manager; 25% colleagues; 6% personnel department; 7% other staff). Parenting: 24% of children had been teased or bullied because of their psychiatric condition (by other school children, neighbours).
10. Ryan (2000) 2	To explore the risk management strategies employed by users of mental health services	To mental health sites in the North of England. Service users with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression or bi-polar disorder were included. Also recruited people who had been an informal inpatient, detained under MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983, and those who had never been in hospital.	Qualitative research Quota sampling employed. Semi-structured interviews. Explored underclass, medical disempowerment, vulnerability, threat, self-harm, dependency, self-neglect. Grounded theory employed.	Participants: 22 participants took part. Mean age of 48.4 years, nine women and 13 men. nine people had diagnosis of schizophrenia, six bi-polar, seven depression. Results: viewed risks as the ‘everyday risks’ they faced such as being teased and ridiculed by people they met, neighbours avoiding them. Previous experiences of assaults had impacted upon people's risk management strategies. Avoidance was a key theme that resulted in people then becoming socially isolated. ‘Many of the users who felt in danger from other people, whether they were friends, other users or people they did not know, became socially isolated as their risk management response was often unassertive and aimed at avoiding conflict.’ Participants also reported ‘doing nothing’ in order to avoid experiencing crime. With regard to self-neglect, participants took the line of least resistance and were therefore exploited by others (i.e. from relatives). ‘In relation to other risks users talked about times when they had been homeless, lost contact with family and friends, been assaulted and verbally abused by people in the street, shunned by neighbours and abused physically, financially and sexually.’ Sometimes sought help from other service users or social workers.
11. Hedges et al. (2009)	To explore disabled people's experiences of violence and hostility.		Qualitative research Semi-structured interviews with a number of stakeholders from key organisations including those with disabilities.	Participants: 30 disabled people were interviewed either with a learning disability or mental health condition. Key findings Typology of 8 key types of victimisation: physical, verbal and sexual incidents, targeted anti-social behaviour, damage to property and theft, school bullying, incidents by statutory agency staff, cyber bullying. Settings and motivation: Most likely to occur in the street or home-based setting. But also in colleges, work and public transport. Motivations of perpetrator, threat and vulnerability. Also may see people as lesser than them. Prevention tactics: People may re-structure their lives to minimise risks (e.g. longer walking route). Most common strategies were acceptance or avoidance. Reporting and seeking redress: tended to report to a third party rather than police however, third parties involvement is under studied (i.e. social workers, housing associations, local authorities, civil justice agencies, voluntary bodies, and others can play.) A need for better joined up inter-agency working. Barriers to reporting: physical, procedural and attitudinal barriers of reporting to police. Will be in the wrong. Also may be because of victims relationship with perpetrator, may blame themselves for what happened or just believe it's a part of everyday life.
12. Smyth et al. (2011) 74(7)	This research aimed to explore the experiences of social inclusion for mental health service users when engaged in everyday community occupations and to identify possible factors that influenced the service user experience.	Mental Health Trust's rehabilitation service in an inner-city area in UK. Service users from rehabilitation service who were engaged in any type of community occupation and who were able to give informed consent.	Qualitative research Convenience sample Individual in-depth interviews in two parts: (1) inclusion web to identify community occupations; (2) used an interview schedule, which covered three main topics: identifying and describing the experience of community occupations, factors that have an impact on engagement and the participant's feelings of inclusion or exclusion. IPA to analyse data	Participants: The eight participants consisted of six men and two women with a mean age (range) of 39 years (32–46 years). Findings: The three super-ordinate themes were the outside experience, the internal disability and an active lifestyle. Environmental features of exclusion: experienced unfriendly, hostile and bullying reactions from other people due to mental health prejudice, racism or homophobia. Negative experiences of social support provided by mental health services which, at times, felt unsupportive and abusive. Internal disability, internal features of inclusion and exclusion: Stigma and safety: some people ceased to feel safe in their community and restricted them from engaging in community activities due to dealing with unpleasant memories with experiences of hostility and abuse.
13. Wood & Edwards (2005) 10(2)	This study aimed to compare crimes against mentally ill patients living in the community with crimes against students who have a high life-style risk of victimisation.	Community mental health teams and university population. 40 organisations approached to recruit mental health service users	Quantitative research Questionnaire-based research A 55-item victimisation questionnaire was adapted from the British Crime Survey England and Wales (2000) and the National Crime Victimisation Survey (2000). 20 participating charities were sent 225 questionnaires but only 25 were completed (10% response rate) All statistical analyses were conducted using 0.05 alpha level.	Participants: The mentally ill patients (N ¼ 40) consisted of 22 females and 18 males with a mean age of 42.28 years (SD ¼ 11 : 27). Of the mentally ill patients, 32.5% suffered from depression, 15% suffered manic depression, 12.5% suffered schizophrenia, and 12.5% had a dual diagnosis. Individual diagnoses included personality, anxiety, and eating disorders. Patients were mainly White (97.5%), the remainder being Black (2.5%). The student participants (N ¼ 80) consisted of 46 females and 34 males. Students were asked if they had ever suffered from a mental illness: none said they had. Key findings: Half (50%, N  =  20) of the mentally ill patients and just over a third (38.75%, N  =  31) of students reported being victimised at least once. Offender relationship: students most likely victimised by strangers whereas mentally ill people likely to be victimised by range of people including family, partners, friends and strangers. Mentally ill patients experienced more frequent to victimization. More likely to experience personal victimisation than students. There was an interaction between gender and group, Fð1; 117Þ ¼ 13 : 33, p, :001, h ¼ :10, power ¼ 0.95, revealing that mentally ill females experience more frequent victimisation than did mentally ill males or students of either gender. Those with mental illness more likely to hold more negative attitudes towards police. No differences in amount of incident reported to police But mentally ill population more likely to be dissatisfied. Only mentally ill people felt dissatisfied by the police response due to the way they were responded to on a personal level.