ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Coercive measures in psychiatry: consensus and controversy in Swiss professional discourse.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Coercive measures, such as involuntary admission, treatment without consent and mechanical restraint, are among the most ethically contentious practices in psychiatry. In Switzerland, several influential position papers and guidelines articulating different professional, ethical and policy perspectives on the use and prevention of coercion have been published in recent years. Objective: This review aims to provide a comparative analysis of five key Swiss documents addressing coercive measures in psychiatry, focusing on their formal characteristics, thematic priorities and underlying normative assumptions. Methods: A narrative review was conducted aiming to synthesize ethical, legal and clinical perspectives on coercive measures in psychiatry, with particular focus on Swiss position papers emphasizing legal and ethical frameworks. The review included documents discussing involuntary admission, forced medication, seclusion, and restraint, as well as broader ethical analyses of coercion. Five documents published between 2014 and 2025 by various professional and stakeholder organizations were analyzed in terms of their formal structure, key recommendations and framing of coercion. Results: A broad consensus exists across all documents regarding the ethical problem of coercion, the importance of prevention and the prioritization of voluntary treatment. However, significant differences emerged with respect to normative goals (reduction vs. abolition of coercion), attribution of responsibility (procedural safeguards vs. relational practice vs. systemic reform), interpretation of clinical risk and security logics, and framing of coercion as exceptional necessity, professional failure or systemic symptom. Conclusions: The current Swiss debate among professionals on coercive measures is characterized less by empirical disagreement than by different normative and discursive rationalities. Future developments may benefit from integrating procedural and legal safeguards with preventive, relational, outcome-oriented and systemic approaches aimed at reducing coercion.
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.