Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28033391›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Use of Coercive Measures during Involuntary Psychiatric Admission and Treatment Outcomes: Data from a Prospective Study across 10 European Countries.

Paul McLaughlin, Domenico Giacco, Stefan Priebe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Involuntary Clozapine Treatment: A Systematic Review.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. A call for upstream solutions to the unregulated drug crisis in British Columbia, Canada: Locked up or locked out.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  11. Relative efficiency of psychiatric clinics in treating cases without coercion and achieving symptom reduction.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Paul McLaughlinUnit for Social & Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, East London NHS Foundation Trust and Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2048-6226
Domenico GiaccoUnit for Social & Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, East London NHS Foundation Trust and Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.
Stefan PriebeWolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the association between different types of coercive measures (forced medication, seclusion, and restraint) used during involuntary psychiatric admission and two treatment outcomes: retrospective views of patients towards their admission and length of inpatient stay. A secondary analysis was conducted of data previously gathered by the EUNOMIA study (n = 2030 involuntarily detained inpatients across 10 European countries, of whom 770 were subject to one or more coercive measures). Associations between coercive measures and outcomes were tested through multivariable regression models adjusted for patients' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Use of forced medication was associated with patients being significantly less likely to justify their admission when interviewed after three months. All coercive measures were associated with patients staying longer in hospital. When the influence of other variables was considered in a multi-variate analysis, seclusion remained as a significant predictor of longer inpatient stay, adding about 25 days to the average admission. Of the three coercive measures, forced medication appears to be unique in its significant impact on patient disapproval of treatment. While all coercive measures are associated with patients staying longer in hospital, only use of seclusion is associated with longer inpatient stays independently of coerced patients' having higher symptom scores at the time of admission.

Indexed as

CoercionCommitment of Persons with Psychiatric DisordersEuropeFemaleHospitals, PsychiatricHumansLength of StayMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28033391
PMCPMC5199011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.