Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34530830›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2021

Forensic mental health professionals' perceptions of their dual loyalty conflict: findings from a qualitative study.

Helene Merkt, Sophie Haesen, Ariel Eytan, Elmar Habermeyer, Marcelo F Aebi, Bernice Elger, Tenzin Wangmo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Healthcare professionals and opposition to court-ordered treatment for offenders: the end of a 'French exception'?Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Helene MerktInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Helene.seaward@unibas.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-3988-0506
Sophie HaesenInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Ariel EytanService des mesures institutionnelles, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
Elmar HabermeyerPsychiatrische Universitätsklinik Zürich, Klinik für Forensische Psychiatrie, Zürich, Switzerland.
Marcelo F AebiSchool of Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernice ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Tenzin WangmoInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient's well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Clear practical guidelines to support these MHPs' decision-making are lacking, amongst others, due to the ethical conflicts within this field. This qualitative interview study contributes to the much-needed empirical research on how MHPs resolve these ethical conflicts in daily clinical practice.

methods31 MHPs working in court-mandated treatment settings were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and our in-depth analysis followed the thematic analysis approach.

resultsWe first outline how mental health professionals perceive their dual loyalty conflict and how they describe their affiliations with the medical and the justice system. Our findings indicate that this positioning was influenced by situational factors, drawing the MHPs at times closer to the caring or controlling poles. Second, our results illustrate how participating MHPs solve their dual loyalty conflict. Participants considered central to motivate the patient, to see the benefits of treatment and its goals. Further, transparent communication with patients and representatives of the justice system was highlighted as key to develop a trustful relationship with the patient and to manage the influences from the different players involved.

conclusionsEven though individual positioning and opinions towards dealing with the influences of the justice system varied, the results of our research show that, in spite of varying positions, the underlying practice is not very different across participating MHPs. Several techniques that allow developing a high-quality therapeutic alliance with the patient are key elements of general psychotherapy. Transparency appears as the crucial factor when communicating with the patient and with representatives of the justice system. More specifically, patients need to be informed since the beginning of therapy about the limits of medical confidentiality. It is also recommended to develop guidelines that define the level of detailed information that should be disclosed when communicating with the authorities of the justice system.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMental HealthAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPerceptionQualitative ResearchCoercionDual loyaltyDual roleLimited confidentialityOffenderPrisonQualitativeTherapeutic allianceTherapeutic relationshipTransparencyTriangular relationship

Identifiers

PMID34530830
PMCPMC8444425

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.