Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37784077›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2023

Relationship between perceived coercion and perceived justification of coercive measures - secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial.

Alexandre Wullschleger, Angelika Vandamme, Juliane Mielau, Andreas Heinz, Felix Bermpohl, Lieselotte Mahler, Christiane Montag

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Alexandre WullschlegerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany. alexandre.wullschleger@hcuge.ch.
Angelika VandammeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane MielauDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas HeinzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Felix BermpohlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Lieselotte Mahler *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Christiane Montag *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität Zu Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubjective perception of coercion has gained attention as an important outcome. However, little is known about its relation to patients' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between patients' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures and their level of perceived coercion.

methodsThis study presents a secondary analysis of the results of a multi-center RCT conducted to evaluate the effects of post-coercion review. Patients who experienced at least one coercive measure during their hospital stay were included in the trial. Participants' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures was categorized into patient-related and staff-related justifications. Subjective coercion was assessed using the Coercion Experience Scale (CES) and used as dependent variable in a multivariate regression model.

results97 participants who completed the CES were included in the analysis. CES scores were significantly associated with the perception of the coercive measure as justified by staff-related factors (B = 0,540, p < 0,001), as well as with higher level of negative symptoms (B = 0,265, p = 0,011), and with mechanical restraint compared to seclusion (B=-0,343, p = 0,017).

conclusionsPatients' perceptions of coercive measures as justified by staff-related factors such as arbitrariness or incompetence of staff are related to higher levels of perceived coercion. Multiprofessional efforts must be made to restrict the use of coercive measures and to ensure a transparent and sustainable decision-making process, particularly with patients showing high levels of negative symptoms. Such key elements should be part of all coercion reduction programs.

Indexed as

CoercionMental DisordersHospitals, PsychiatricHumansInpatientsRestraint, PhysicalCoercionInpatientsMental health services

Identifiers

PMID37784077
PMCPMC10546675

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.