Contrary to the original study, the follow-up study suggested that seclusion might be a less restrictive alternative for most patients. The incidence of PTSD seemed lower than expected.

BackgroundAlthough the authors of a Cochrane Review on seclusion and mechanical restraint concluded that "there is a surprising and shocking lack of published trials" on coercive interventions in psychiatry, there are only few instruments that can be applied in trials. Furthermore, as main outcome variable safety, psychopathological symptoms, and duration of an intervention cannot meet the demand to indicate subjective suffering and impact relevant to posttraumatic stress syndromes. An instrument used in controlled trials should assess the patients' subjective experiences, needs to be applicable to more than one intervention in order to compare different coercive measures and has to account for the specific psychiatric context.MethodsThe primary version of the questionnaire comprised 44 items, nine items on restrictions to human rights, developed on a clinical basis, and 35 items on stressors, derived from patients' comments during the pilot phase of the study. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring (PAF) was carried out. The resulting factors were orthogonally rotated via VARIMAX procedure. Items with factor loadings less than .50 were eliminated. The reliability of the subscales was assessed by calculating Cronbach.ResultsData of 102 patients was analysed. The analysis yielded six factors which were entitled "Humiliation", "Physical adverse effects", "Separation", "Negative environment", "Fear" and "Coercion". These six factors explained 54.5% of the total variance. Cronbach alpha ranged from .67 to .93, which can be interpreted as a high internal consistency. Convergent and discriminant validity yielded both highly significant results (r = .79, p < .001, resp. r = .38, p < .001).ConclusionsThe "Coercion Experience Scale" is an instrument to measure the psychological impact during psychiatric coercive interventions. Its psychometric properties showed satisfying reliability and validity. For purposes of research it can be used to compare different coercive interventions. In clinical practice it can be used as a screening instrument for patients who need support after coercive interventions to prevent consequences from traumatic experiences. Further research is needed to identify possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic implications of the total score and the different subscales.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN70589121

The results do not provide evidence for using one intervention rather than the other. Clinical decisions should take into account patients' preferences. Randomized controlled trials of coercive interventions are feasible. Such studies contribute to the development of ethical and evidence-based guidelines.

Background:For a reduction in the use of coercive interventions it will be necessary to identify patients at risk. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of basic patient characteristics at admission, history within 24 hours before admission, and living conditions on the risk of experiencing coercive measures, controlling for ward characteristics in a multi-level approach.Methods:Patient characteristics of 3389 patients (1920 women) who had received inpatient treatment in 2007, data relating to coercive measures, and ward characteristics were extracted from the clinical basic documentation.Results:Patients with aggressive behaviour in the 24 hours prior to admission had a three times higher risk of coercive measures compared to non-aggressive patients. Severity of illness increased the risk of coercion markedly. With each level of severity, the risk of coercion was doubled. Voluntariness of stay appeared to be the best protective factor against coercive measures. If a patient stayed voluntarily, this reduced the risk of coercion by more than two thirds. No impact was found for living conditions.Conclusions:To identify patients at risk, it is most important to intensively monitor patients with aggressive behaviour prior to admission and patients with a greater severity of psychopathological symptoms.

No abstract