BackgroundDespite the scarce evidence for patients’ benefits of coercion and its well-documented negative effects, the use of compulsion is still very common around Europe, with important variations among different countries. These variations have been partially explained by the different legal frameworks, but also by several individual-related, system-related and area-related characteristics, identified as predictors of the use of coercive measures. This study aimed to compare the socio-demographic and clinical profile as well as the referral and hospitalisation process of people voluntarily and involuntarily hospitalized in order to identify which factors could be associated with the use of coercion.MethodsAll psychiatric admissions occurred between the 1st January 2015 and the 31st December 2015 were included in this retrospective study (n = 5027). The whole sample was split into two subgroups accordingly to the hospitalisation legal status at admission (voluntary vs involuntary) and differences between the two groups were examined. In order to identify the factors associated with coercion, all the variables reaching a p < .01 level of significance when comparing the two groups were included as independent variables into a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsGlobally, 62% of the admissions were voluntary and 38% were involuntary. Compared to the voluntary group, involuntary patients were significantly older, more frequently widowed and living in one specific district, and had a main diagnosis of schizophrenia (F20-F29) or organic mental disorders (F00-F09). People affected by organic mental disorders (F00-F09), with higher levels of psychotic symptoms, aggression and problems with medication adherence, were more likely to be involuntarily admitted. Moreover, living in District 1, being referred by a general practitioner, a general hospital or a psychiatric hospital and being involuntarily admitted during the previous 12 months, was associated with a higher risk of coercion.ConclusionsThis study identified several individual-related, as well as system-related factors associated with the use of coercion. These results allowed us to trace a clearer profile of high-risk patients and to provide several inputs that could help local authorities, professionals and researchers to develop better-targeted alternative interventions reducing the use of coercion.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1966-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundThe MacArthur Admission Experience Survey (AES) is a widely used tool to evaluate the level of perceived coercion experienced at psychiatric hospital admission. The French-language AES was prepared using a translation/back-translation procedure. It consists of 16 items and 3 subscores (perceived coercion, negative pressures and voice). This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the French-language AES.Methods152 inpatients were evaluated. Reliability was estimated using internal consistency coefficients and a test–retest procedure. Internal validity was assessed using a two-parameter logistic item response model. Convergent validity was estimated using correlations between the AES scores and the Coercion Ladder (CL), the Coercion Experience Scale (CES) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Discriminatory power was evaluated by comparing the scores of patients undergoing voluntary or compulsory admission.ResultsThe French-language AES showed good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Internal validity of the three-factor model was excellent. Correlations between AES and CL, CES and GAF scores suggested good convergent validity. AES scores were significantly higher among patients subject to compulsory psychiatric hospital admission than among those admitted voluntarily.ConclusionsOverall, the French-language version of the AES demonstrated very good psychometric proprieties.
Purpose: The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) has received growing interest in clinical and research settings. JCP is a type of psychiatric advance statement that describes how to recognize early signs of crisis and how to manage crises. The purpose of the present study, to our knowledge the first to be conducted on this topic in the French-speaking context and to include inpatients, was to describe the content of JCPs and how they are perceived by patients and the providers.Methods: The study used an exploratory, mixed, sequential method. Existing JCPs were retrospectively collected in several clinical contexts (hospital, community settings, and sheltered accommodation). Based on their analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews including some rating scales on the perception of the JCPs among patients and providers in these settings. For the qualitative analyses, content analyses were conducted with a hybrid approach using NVivo 12 software. Data were double-coded and discussed with a third researcher until agreement was reached.Results: One hundred eighty-four JCPs were collected retrospectively and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 providers. No relatives could be included in the research process. The content of the studied JCPs was relevant and indicated that patients had good knowledge of themselves and their illness. Improvements in the quality of the therapeutic relationship, respect for patients' choices and wishes, and a greater sense of control of their illness were reported. The JCP was perceived as a very useful tool by patients and providers. Concerning JCP limitations, lack of staff training, difficulties with the shared decision-making process, and the poor availability of the JCPs when needed were reported.Conclusion: The study highlights that JCPs may be used with patients suffering from a large variety of psychiatric disorders in different care settings. The JCP is perceived as very useful by both patients and providers. The promising results of this study support the promotion of the wide use of JCPs with patients who have experienced crises. It is important to continue to research JCPs through impact studies that include family members.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.