ArticleFortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie2025
[The Attitude of the Public Concerning Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Patients].
Article in Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Perspectives on Open-Door Policies in Psychiatry: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Treatment-seeking threshold and accessibility of psychiatric outpatient services in Switzerland: the relationship with stigma and self-esteem.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in outpatient psychiatry - is there an association to perceived discrimination and devaluation?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- General and Case-Specific Approval of Coercion in Psychiatry in the Public Opinion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Personality, self-esteem, familiarity, and mental health stigmatization: a cross-sectional vignette-based study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the attitude of the general public in Basel concerning the use of coercive measures while dealing with psychiatric patients. The common population indirectly governs the use of coercive measures in psychiatry by its stigmatization of people with psychiatric illnesses, and its attitude towards treatment in psychiatry and by local opinion leaders and reactions of social networks.
methodsThe answers of 1,112 persons from a representative population survey were evaluated. Participants were mailed case vignettes and questionnaires, and asked if they considered involuntary admission, coercive medication, and/or seclusion as acceptable measures in dealing with psychiatric patients.
resultsWhen symptoms of a psychotic disorder were present, 31.5% approved of at least one coercive measure, with 22% approval in the case of a borderline personality disorder, and 20.7% in the case of alcohol dependency. However, the overall rejection of coercive measures by the general public in Basel was high. The differential approval of the examined coercive measures depending on psychiatric symptoms was in line with professional medical and ethical guidelines.
conclusionPublic attitudes have an indirect influence on the local use of coercive measures and should be included in the specialist psychiatric discourse.
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.