Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25900468›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2016

Subjective experience of coercion in psychiatric care: a study comparing the attitudes of patients and healthy volunteers towards coercive methods and their justification.

J Mielau, J Altunbay, J Gallinat, A Heinz, F Bermpohl, A Lehmann, C Montag

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. [Coercive interventions: historical summary and review of subjective experience].Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2018
    Review
  10. Neurobiological background of borderline personality disorder, PTSD and ADHD.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J MielauDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. juliane.mielau@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6103-025X
J AltunbayDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
J GallinatDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
A HeinzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
F BermpohlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
A LehmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
C MontagDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (PUK Charité im SHK), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Under certain conditions, coercive interventions in psychotic patients can help to regain insight and alleviate symptoms, but can also traumatize subjects. This study explored attitudes towards psychiatric coercive interventions in healthy individuals and persons suffering from schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. The impact of personal history of coercive treatment on preferences concerning clinical management of patients unable to consent was investigated. Six case vignettes depicting scenarios of ethical dilemmas and demanding decisions in favour of or against coercive interventions were presented to 60 healthy volunteers and 90 patients. Structured interviews focusing on experienced coercion were performed in conjunction with the Coercion Experience Scale and the Admission Experience Survey. Symptom severity, psychosocial functioning and insight into illness were assessed as influencing variables. Student's t tests compared patients' and controls' judgments, followed by regression analyses to define the predictive value of symptoms and measures of coercion on judgments regarding the total patient sample and patients with experience of fixation. Patients and non-psychiatric controls showed no significant difference in their attitudes towards involuntary admission and forced medication. Conversely, patients more than controls significantly disapproved of mechanical restraint. Subjective experience of coercive interventions played an important role for the justification of treatment against an individual's "natural will". Factors influencing judgments on coercion were overall functioning and personal experience of treatment effectiveness and fairness. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of perceived coercion, in addition to insight into illness, predicted judgments of previously fixated patients. Results underline the importance of the quality of practical implementation and care, if coercive interventions cannot be avoided.

Indexed as

CoercionHospitals, PsychiatricAdolescentAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansJudgmentMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotherapyRestraint, PhysicalSurveys and QuestionnairesCoercionConsumers’ perspectiveFixationInsight into illnessInvoluntary treatmentsNatural will

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.