ReviewFrontiers in public health2014
The use of coercive interventions in mental health care in Germany and the Netherlands. A comparison of the developments in two neighboring countries.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- [The Attitude of the Public Concerning Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Patients].Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie · 2025Article
- Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting - A multiple qualitative case study.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Investigating the association of mechanical restraint with somatic harmful outcomes: national register-based study.BJPsych open · 2024Article
- Novel Approaches Needed: An Experimental Study with an Alternative to Mechanical Restraint.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Meaning Analysis and Alienation: A Method of Immanent Critique in Acute Psychiatry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Reduction of coercive measures under routine conditions in psychiatric hospitals 2004-2019: Strong effects in old age psychiatry, much less in general psychiatry.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2020Article
- Aims to Reduce Coercive Measures in Forensic Inpatient Treatment: A 9-Year Observational Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Moral Dilemmas in Contact-Based Care: The Relevance of Moral Case Deliberation for Forensic Psychiatry.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Freedom Restrictive Coercive Measures in Forensic Psychiatry.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Criteria, Procedures, and Future Prospects of Involuntary Treatment in Psychiatry Around the World: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- Predictors of Compulsory Re-admission to Psychiatric Inpatient Care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- [Coercive interventions: historical summary and review of subjective experience].Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2018Review
- Treatment decision-making capacity in non-consensual psychiatric treatment: a multicentre study.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2018Article
- Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals' and patients' view: a qualitative interview study.BMC psychiatry · 2018Article
- Long-Term Impact of a Tailored Seclusion Reduction Program: Evidence for Change?The Psychiatric quarterly · 2018Article
- Cross-sectional study on nurses' attitudes regarding coercive measures: the importance of socio-demographic characteristics, job satisfaction, and strategies for coping with stress.BMC psychiatry · 2018Article
- [Coercive measures in German hospitals for psychiatry and psychotherapy : A pilot study by the DGPPN to evaluate a uniform assessment instrument].Der Nervenarzt · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.