Use of Coercive Measures During Involuntary Hospitalization: Findings From Ten European Countries

Raboch, Jiří; Kališová, Lucie; Nawka, Alexander; Kitzlerová, Eva; Onchev, Georgi; Karastergiou, Anastasia; Magliano, L.; Dembinskas, Algirdas; Kiejna, Andrzej; Torres-Gonzales, Francisco; Kjellin, Lars; Priebe, Stefan; Kallert, Thomas W.

doi:10.1176/appi.ps.61.10.1012

Cited by 78 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1,2 Adding to the complexity of the discussion about restraint use are differing practices among and across regions and organizations. 3,4 Evidence indicates that there are many negative physical and emotional consequences of restraint, both for inpatients and for clinicians. [5][6][7][8][9][10] In response to adverse outcomes associated with restraint, many organizations have made recommendations to reduce or eliminate the use of restraint in mental health settings.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To our knowledge, our study is the first to use debriefing form data to explore mental health inpatients' experiences of restraint. Inpatients view restraint negatively and do not experience it as a therapeutic intervention. Debriefing, guided by a form, is useful for understanding the inpatient's experience of restraint, and should be used to re-establish the therapeutic relationship and to inform plans of care. In addition, individual and collective inpatient perspectives should inform alternatives to restraint.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, one of the main findings of this review is that only a few studies have been carried out and mainly without a sound and rigorous methodology such as the EUNOMIA study [3,5,12,32,46,[52][53][54][55][56]. This study, funded by the European Commission, has been the first (and the only) attempt to harmonize clinical practice about coercion, by providing data about the use of coercive measures in European countries, by describing the differences in jurisdiction in European countries and by providing international guidelines based on consensus.…”

Section: Expert Commentary and Five-year Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aggressive behavior was the most frequent reason for the use of coercion [54] Priebe et al The use of coercive measures was related to a more negative patient-therapist relationship [49] Petkari et al…”

Section: Expert Commentary and Five-year Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of coercive measures in mental health practice and its impact on outcome: a critical review

Luciano

Sampogna

Vecchio

et al. 2014

Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although coercive measures have always been part of the psychiatric armamentarium, the ethical dilemma between the use of a "therapeutic" coercion and the loss of patients' dignity is one of the major controversial issues in mental health research and practice. The aims of the present review are to explore the existing literature on predictors of use of coercive measures and to explore the relationship between coercive measures and patient outcome. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, PsychyINFO, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Database. In all selected papers, references were cross-checked to identify other possible eligible papers. The use of coercive measures was predicted by patients' clinical and socio-demographic features, staff characteristics and ward-related factors. Coercive measures have only a limited impact on patients' clinical and social outcome. At the current level of knowledge, coercion is still a controversial issue in mental health practice. Only few studies with a solid methodology have been carried out. Large multicenter and rigorous studies, with long-term follow-ups, are highly needed.

show abstract

“…This finding is similar to previous literature findings (8) that associated high scores of an aggressiveness scale to a higher risk of involuntary hospitalization. In a European study on coercive measures (35), aggression against others was the commonest reason for prescribing them. The involuntary legal status on admission itself has been associated with disruptive behavior during hospital stay (11) and has been considered a predictor of the necessity of coercive measures (36, 37).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Affiliation as a Predictor of Involuntary Psychiatric Admission: A Brazilian 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Casella

Loch

2014

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with the legal status at psychiatric admission of individuals with psychosis or bipolar disorder in a Latin-American cultural setting.Methods: Prospective observational study was conducted in São Paulo, Brazil. We analyzed 169 individuals with bipolar or psychotic disorder in need of hospitalization. Sociodemographic data, data on the psychiatric disorder, information about the hospital stay, and data at time of discharge were collected. Their families were also contacted by telephone and interviews were conducted at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months post-discharge as a follow-up.Results: Eighty-eight patients (52%) had a voluntary admission and 81 (48%) had an involuntary admission (IA). The average length of admission was similar in both groups (17.4 vs. 17.3 days, p = 0.22). It was significantly more common for IA patients to be admitted because of other-directed aggressiveness (47.7 vs. 65.4%, p = 0.02). The percentage of individuals that needed physical restraint during hospital stay among IA patients was also significantly higher (11.4 vs. 25.9%, p = 0.01). Having any religious affiliations was significantly related to an IA status as well (OR = 4–6.48).Conclusion: Our results suggest that cultural factors related to religious affiliations might play an important role in determining psychiatric hospitalization legal status. Religion might possibly influence someone’s judgment and insight about his/her psychiatric disorder. This study restates the importance of dealing with the subject of religion with patients.

show abstract

Use of Coercive Measures During Involuntary Hospitalization: Findings From Ten European Countries

Cited by 78 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis

Use of coercive measures in mental health practice and its impact on outcome: a critical review

Religious Affiliation as a Predictor of Involuntary Psychiatric Admission: A Brazilian 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About