ArticleNursing ethics2026
The ethics of mandated inpatient mental healthcare: The consumer perspective.
Article in Nursing ethics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundAlthough mandated inpatient mental healthcare is initiated on a therapeutic premise, consumers' autonomy, safety and recovery are often compromised. Mandated inpatient mental healthcare is ethically complex and the therapeutic basis of inpatient mental healthcare must be clearly established.Research aimThe aim of this study is to understand the perspectives of consumers in relation to the ethical merits and demerits of mandated inpatient mental healthcare.Research designThis study was a qualitative descriptive study, involving semi-structured interviews with 12 consumers. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, whereby significant themes were constructed and reported with supporting quotes.Participants and research contextParticipants were adults who had experienced involuntary inpatient mental healthcare. Participants were recruited from social media special interest groups.Ethical considerationsFree and fully informed consent was sought from all participants. This study was approved by a university human research ethics committee.FindingsMandated inpatient mental healthcare was regarded as ethical to the extent that it ensured safety in circumstances that could not be managed without mandated intervention. However, the perceived ethical merit of mandated care was challenged by recurring violence and unwanted sexual interactions, as reported by the participants of this study. Furthermore, mandated inpatient mental healthcare involved the routine and unnecessary suspension of participants' autonomy, without regard for their preferences or individual needs.ConclusionsMandated inpatient mental healthcare is ethical to the extent that it is necessary for ensuring therapeutic outcomes. However, the hazardous environment and incursions to autonomy described by participants compromise perceived ethical integrity. This study demonstrates the necessity of a clear therapeutic basis for all aspects of mandated inpatient mental healthcare, and that greater consideration for consumer safety and autonomy is needed.
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.