Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38977963›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Strategies to promote treatment compliance: a grounded theory study with relatives of people with a serious mental health condition.

Christin Hempeler, Sarah Potthoff, Matthé Scholten, Georg Juckel, Jakov Gather

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. 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. Article
  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

5 authors.

Christin HempelerInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstraße 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany. christin.hempeler@rub.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8532-3284
Sarah PotthoffInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstraße 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0434-8218
Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstraße 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8000-8974
Georg JuckelDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Alexandrinenstraße 1-3, 44791, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9860-9620
Jakov GatherInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstraße 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8058-7301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment pressures encompass communicative strategies that influence mental healthcare service users' decision-making to increase their compliance with recommended treatment. Persuasion, interpersonal leverage, inducements, and threats have been described as examples of treatment pressures. Research indicates that treatment pressures are exerted not only by mental healthcare professionals but also by relatives. While relatives play a crucial role in their family member's pathway to care, research on the use of treatment pressures by relatives is still scarce. Likewise, little is known about other strategies relatives may use to promote the treatment compliance of their family member with a serious mental health condition. In particular, no study to date has investigated this from the perspective of relatives of people with a serious mental health condition.

aimThe aim of this study was to answer the following research questions: Which types of treatment pressures do relatives use? Which other strategies do relatives use to promote the treatment compliance of their family member with a serious mental health condition? How do treatment pressures relate to these other strategies?

methodsEleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with relatives of people with a serious mental health condition in Germany. Participants were approached via relatives' self-help groups and flyers in a local psychiatric hospital. Inclusion criteria were having a family member with a psychiatric diagnosis and the family member having experienced formal coercion. The data were analyzed using grounded theory methodology.

resultsRelatives use a variety of strategies to promote the treatment compliance of their family member with a serious mental health condition. These strategies can be categorized into three general approaches: influencing the decision-making of the family member; not leaving the family member with a choice; and changing the social or legal context of the decision-making process. Our results show that the strategies that relatives use to promote their family member's treatment compliance go beyond the treatment pressures thus far described in the literature.

conclusionThis qualitative study supports and conceptually expands prior findings that treatment pressures are not only frequently used within mental healthcare services but also by relatives in the home setting. Mental healthcare professionals should acknowledge the difficulties faced and efforts undertaken by relatives in seeking treatment for their family member. At the same time, they should recognize that a service user's consent to treatment may be affected and limited by strategies to promote treatment compliance employed by relatives.

Indexed as

FamilyGrounded TheoryMental DisordersAdultAgedDecision MakingFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceQualitative ResearchEthicsInformal caregivingInformal coercionInformed consentPsychological pressureTreatment pressureVoluntariness

Identifiers

PMID38977963
PMCPMC11229214

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.