ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2016
Staff and caregiver attitude to coercion in India.
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic literature review of the use of Staff Attitudes to Coercion Scale (SACS).Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Measurement Properties of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Attitudes of psychiatrists and caregivers towards covert medication administration in India: A cross-sectional study.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Attitudes of psychiatric staff toward coercion: nationwide AttCo study.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Public acceptance of coercive measures in Nigerian mental health care.The International journal of social psychiatry · 2025Article
- Staff Attitude Towards Coercive Measures in Hospital and Community Psychiatric Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- A Scoping Review on Staff Attitudes towards the Use of Coercion in Mental Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparing attitudes towards compulsory interventions in severe and persistent mental illness among psychiatrists in India and Switzerland.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Experience of violence and attitudes of staff members towards coercion in psychiatric settings: observational study.BJPsych open · 2024Article
- Factors and Processes Facilitating Recovery from Coercion in Mental Health Services-A Meta-Ethnography.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the staff attitude to coercion scale: an exploratory factor analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The experience of informal caregivers in providing patient care in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries: A qualitative meta-synthesis.Journal of health services research & policy · 2022Review
- A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess the Frequency of Restraint, and Knowledge and Attitudes of the Caregivers of Patients Toward Restraint in a General Hospital Psychiatry Setting from South India.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2022Article
- Development of the Japanese version of Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- A German Version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. Development and Empirical Validation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Restraint guidelines for mental health services in India.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2019Review
- Alternatives to use of restraint: A path toward humanistic care.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2019Review
- Clinician attitude and perspective on the use of coercive measures in clinical practice from tertiary care mental health establishment - A cross-sectional study.Indian journal of psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to assess attitudes of Indian psychiatrists and caregivers toward coercion. MATERIALS AND: Methods: The study was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry, Krishna Rajendra Hospital, Mysore, India. Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS), a 15-item questionnaire, was administered to self-selected psychiatrists across India and caregivers from Mysore to measure attitudes on coercion. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and investigating differences in subgroups by means of Chi-square test, Student's
resultsA total of 210 psychiatrists and 210 caregivers participated in the study. Both groups agreed that coercion was related to scarce resources, security concerns, and harm reduction. Both groups agreed that coercion is necessary, but not as treatment. Older caregivers and male experienced psychiatrists considered coercion related to scarce resources to violate patient integrity. All participants considered coercion necessary for protection in dangerous situations. Professionals and caregivers significantly disagreed on most items. The reliability of the SACS was reasonable to good among the psychiatrists group, but not in the caregiver group (alpha 0.58 vs. 0.07).
conclusionCaregivers and psychiatrists felt that the lack of resources is one of the reasons for coercion. Furthermore, they felt that the need on early identification of aggressive behavior, interventions to reduce aggressiveness, empowering patients, improving hospital resources, staff training in verbal de-escalation techniques is essential. There is an urgent need in the standardized operating procedure in the use of coercive measure in Indian mental health setting.
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.