ReviewJournal of psychiatric and mental health nursing2025
Coercive Measures in Psychiatry Can Hardly Be Justified in Principle Any Longer-Ethico-Legal Requirements Versus Empirical Research Data and Conceptual Issues.
Review in Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allyship in Psychiatric and Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Patient experiences of coercion in mental healthcare: systematic review and metasummary of qualitative studies from 1991 to 2025.BJPsych open · 2026Review
- Implementing modular competence-oriented psychotherapy in inpatient psychiatry: a three-year analysis of restraint and seclusion.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Examining the Association Between Perceived Quality of Care and Experienced Coercion Among Patients in Acute Mental Health Units in Spain: A National Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Attitudes Toward Coercion Among Mental Healthcare Workers in Italy: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- When Psychiatric Services Become a Waiting Room: Situational Analysis of Involuntary Commitment and Treatment as Experienced by Patients and Nurses.Clinical nursing research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo review the scientific and empirical evidence that is usually accepted for the ethical and legal justification of coercion in psychiatry.
methodFive key criteria are examined as follows: (1) the demonstrable existence of a mental disorder; (2) the effectiveness of psychiatric measures; (3) the use of coercion as last resort and as least possible restriction; (4) the benefit of the person affected by the coercive measure and (5) the restoration of the affected person's autonomy.
results(1) The existence of a demarcation between a mentally ill and a mentally healthy state cannot be confirmed; (2) Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions in psychiatry are not even moderately effective; (3) Coercive measures are usually not used as last resort and as least restrictive measure; (4) Most people affected by psychiatric coercion do not benefit from the measures; (5) It is at least unclear whether autonomy is affected by a mental illness and whether it can be restored through a coercive psychiatric measure. DISCUSSION: None of the central ethical and legal criteria for the use of coercion in psychiatry are clearly and unambiguously fulfilled according to current research. IMPLICATIONS: Psychiatric coercion can hardly be justified any longer.
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.