Patients' attitudes towards and acceptance of coercion in psychiatry

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patients' attitudes towards and acceptance of coercion in psychiatry

AU - Krieger, Eva

AU - Moritz, Steffen

AU - Weil, Ricarda

AU - Nagel, Matthias

N1 - Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2017/12/13

Y1 - 2017/12/13

N2 - Coercive interventions for psychiatric patients are controversial. Research on different preventive measures has increased over the last years. The present study examined patients' attitudes towards and understanding of previously experienced coercive measures as well as their preferences related to coercive measures and possible alternatives. In total, 213 patients who had experienced coercion and 51 patient controls (patients staying voluntarily on a closed ward with no coercive treatment) from three acute wards were examined via expert interviews and questionnaires in the framework of a naturalistic trial. Assessments included a new self-developed questionnaire as well as instruments measuring psychopathology. Patients who had experienced coercion differed from controls in both symptoms and insight into their illness. As expected, "noninvasive measures" (e.g., the use of a "soft room," observation in seclusion) were better accepted by patients than "invasive measures" (e.g., mechanical restraint, forced medication). Forced medication and mechanical restraint were less well accepted than involuntary hospitalization, seclusion, or video surveillance. The retrospective understanding of coercive measures increased over the course of treatment. In addition, patients rated a number of options for reducing coercion on the wards, particularly music or exercises. A large subgroup indicated they would like to discuss future admissions with the staff.

AB - Coercive interventions for psychiatric patients are controversial. Research on different preventive measures has increased over the last years. The present study examined patients' attitudes towards and understanding of previously experienced coercive measures as well as their preferences related to coercive measures and possible alternatives. In total, 213 patients who had experienced coercion and 51 patient controls (patients staying voluntarily on a closed ward with no coercive treatment) from three acute wards were examined via expert interviews and questionnaires in the framework of a naturalistic trial. Assessments included a new self-developed questionnaire as well as instruments measuring psychopathology. Patients who had experienced coercion differed from controls in both symptoms and insight into their illness. As expected, "noninvasive measures" (e.g., the use of a "soft room," observation in seclusion) were better accepted by patients than "invasive measures" (e.g., mechanical restraint, forced medication). Forced medication and mechanical restraint were less well accepted than involuntary hospitalization, seclusion, or video surveillance. The retrospective understanding of coercive measures increased over the course of treatment. In addition, patients rated a number of options for reducing coercion on the wards, particularly music or exercises. A large subgroup indicated they would like to discuss future admissions with the staff.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.12.029

DO - 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.12.029

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 29287276

VL - 260

SP - 478

EP - 485

JO - PSYCHIAT RES

JF - PSYCHIAT RES

SN - 0165-1781

ER -