Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34872630›Full record

Trial reportEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2021

Effect of standardized post-coercion review on subjective coercion: Results of a randomized-controlled trial.

A Wullschleger, A Vandamme, J Mielau, L Stoll, A Heinz, F Bermpohl, A Bechdolf, M Stelzig, O Hardt, I Hauth and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors.

A WullschlegerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9282-8064
A VandammeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6282-082X
J MielauDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
L StollDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
A HeinzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5405-9065
F BermpohlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3260-6328
A BechdolfDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vivantes Hospital Am Urban and Vivantes Hospital im Friedrichshain/Charité Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
M StelzigDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vivantes Wenckebach Clinic, Berlin, Germany.
O HardtDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vivantes Clinic Neukölln, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9291-1212
I HauthDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, St. Joseph Hospital Berlin-Weissensee, Berlin, Germany.
V Holthoff-DettoDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Alexianer Hospital Hedwigshöhe, St. Hedwig Kliniken Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7803-1091
L MahlerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
C MontagDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3307-276X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-coercion review has been increasingly regarded as a useful intervention in psychiatric inpatient setting. However, little is known about its effect on perceived coercion.

methodsA multicenter, two-armed, randomized controlled trial was conducted, aiming at analyzing the effect of post-coercion review on perceived coercion. People with severe mental disorders, who experienced at least one coercive measure during inpatient treatment, were randomized using Zelen's design to an intervention group receiving standardized post-coercion review, or a control group treated as usual. The MacArthur admission experience scale (AES) and the coercion ladder (CL) were used to assess perceived coercion during inpatient treatment. The coercion experience scale (CES) measured experienced coercion during the coercive intervention. Analyses of covariance were performed to determine group differences.

resultsOf 422 randomized participants, n = 109 consented to participate in the trial. A restricted intention-to-treat analysis of all individuals who consented revealed no significant effect of the intervention on perceived coercion. A significant interaction effect between the factors gender and intervention on the AES scores was found. Sensitivity analysis revealed significant effects of the intervention on both AES and CL scores and an interaction effect between intervention and gender, indicating a higher efficacy in women. No effect of the intervention on CES scores was found.

conclusionsStandardized post-coercion review sessions did not alleviate the subjective perception of coercion in the total sample. However, post hoc analysis revealed a significant effect of the intervention in women. Results indicate the need to further address gender-specific issues related to coercion.

Indexed as

CoercionMental DisordersFemaleHospitalizationHumansCoercionpost-coercion reviewpsychiatrysubjective coercion

Identifiers

PMID34872630
PMCPMC8715283

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.