ArticleDiscover mental health2026
Patient and family organization perspectives on poor treatment in Swedish adult psychiatric care.
Article in Discover mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Respect and integrity are fundamental to effective psychiatric care, yet patient experiences of poor treatment remain a significant concern. This study explores patient perspectives on mistreatment within Swedish adult psychiatry through focus group interviews with representatives of patient and family organizations. Participants described systemic and interpersonal challenges that contribute to inadequate care, identifying four main themes: inaccessibility of psychiatric services, lack of collaboration between patients and healthcare providers, absence of a holistic perspective on patients, and a stark power imbalance between vulnerable individuals and an authoritative psychiatric system. Structural barriers, including long wait times and limited treatment options, were perceived as forms of neglect, leaving patients struggling to access necessary care. Patients frequently felt excluded from decision-making, as their lived experiences were often dismissed in favor of standardized treatment protocols. This lack of recognition was further compounded by epistemic injustice, where patients' accounts were deemed unreliable due to prevailing biases against psychiatric populations. Participants emphasized the emotional toll of dismissive encounters, with many patients reporting feelings of helplessness, mistrust, and self-doubt. The study highlights the urgent need for reforms that prioritize respect, collaboration, and patient-centered care in psychiatric settings. Addressing these concerns requires systemic changes to reduce barriers to care, improve communication, and ensure that psychiatric patients are treated as credible, autonomous individuals. By acknowledging patient perspectives, psychiatric care can foster greater trust, improve adherence to treatment, and ultimately enhance mental health outcomes.
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.