Background: When persons with a mental illness present a danger to themselves or others, involuntary hospital admission can be used to initiate an immediate inpatient treatment. Often, the patients have the right to appeal against compulsory admission. These processes are implemented in most mental health-care systems, but regulations and legal framework differ widely. In the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, a new regulation was implemented in January 2013. While the current literature holds some evidence for factors associated with involuntary admission, knowledge on who uses the right to appeal against admission is sparse. Aims: The study aims to examine if specific sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are associated with involuntary admission and with an appeal against the compulsory admission order. Method: Routine clinical data of all inpatient cases admitted during the period from January 2013 to December 2015 at the Psychiatric University Hospital Basel were extracted. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were used to examine the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with “involuntary admission” and “appeal against compulsory admission order.” Results: Of the 8,917 cases included in the present study, 942 (10.6%) were admitted involuntarily. Of these, 250 (26.5%) lodged an appeal against the compulsory admission order. Compared with cases admitted on a voluntary legal status, cases admitted involuntarily were older and were admitted more often during the nighttime or weekend. Moreover, involuntarily admitted cases had more often a principal diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Patients from cases where an appeal was lodged were more often female, had more often Swiss nationality, and were more often diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Conclusion: Despite legal changes, the frequency of involuntary admissions in the observed catchment area seems to be relatively stable across the last 20 years. The percentage of appeals has decreased from 2000 to 2015, and only comparably few patients make use of the possibility to appeal. Better knowledge of the regulations, higher social functioning, and lower insight into illness might be associated with a higher probability of lodging an appeal. Future research should examine if specific patient groups are in need of additional assistance to exert their rights to appeal.

ObjectiveNoncompliance with scheduled ambulatory saliva sampling is common and has been associated with biased cortisol estimates in nonpregnant subjects. This study is the first to investigate in pregnant women strategies to improve ambulatory saliva-sampling compliance, and the association between sampling noncompliance and saliva cortisol estimates.MethodsWe instructed 64 pregnant women to collect eight scheduled saliva samples on two consecutive days each. Objective compliance with scheduled sampling times was assessed with a Medication Event Monitoring System and self-reported compliance with a paper-and-pencil diary. In a randomized controlled study, we estimated whether a disclosure intervention (informing women about objective compliance monitoring) and a reminder intervention (use of acoustical reminders) improved compliance. A mixed model analysis was used to estimate associations between women's objective compliance and their diurnal cortisol profiles, and between deviation from scheduled sampling and the cortisol concentration measured in the related sample.ResultsSelf-reported compliance with a saliva-sampling protocol was 91%, and objective compliance was 70%. The disclosure intervention was associated with improved objective compliance (informed: 81%, noninformed: 60%), F(1,60)  = 17.64, p<0.001, but not the reminder intervention (reminders: 68%, without reminders: 72%), F(1,60)  = 0.78, p = 0.379. Furthermore, a woman's increased objective compliance was associated with a higher diurnal cortisol profile, F(2,64) = 8.22, p<0.001. Altered cortisol levels were observed in less objective compliant samples, F(1,705) = 7.38, p = 0.007, with delayed sampling associated with lower cortisol levels.ConclusionsThe results suggest that in pregnant women, objective noncompliance with scheduled ambulatory saliva sampling is common and is associated with biased cortisol estimates. To improve sampling compliance, results suggest informing women about objective compliance monitoring but discourage use of acoustical reminders.

There has been little research exploring the relationship between personality traits, self-esteem, and stigmatizing attitudes toward those with mental disorders. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which the beholder’s personality influence mental illness stigma have not been tested. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between Big Five personality traits, self-esteem, familiarity, being a healthcare professional, and stigmatization. Moreover, this study aims to explore the mediating effect of perceived dangerousness on the relationship between personality traits and desire for social distance. We conducted a vignette-based representative population survey (N = 2207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. Multiple regression analyses were employed to examine the associations between personality traits, self-esteem, familiarity, and being a healthcare professional with the desire for social distance and perceived dangerousness. The mediation analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro by Hayes. Analyses showed associations between personality traits and stigmatization towards mental illness. Those who scored higher on openness to experience (β = − 0.13, p < 0.001), (β = − 0.14, p < 0.001), and those who scored higher on agreeableness (β = − 0.15, p < 0.001), (β = − 0.12, p < 0.001) showed a lower desire for social distance and lower perceived dangerousness, respectively. Neuroticism (β = − 0.06, p = 0.012) was inversely associated with perceived dangerousness. Additionally, high self-esteem was associated with increased stigmatization. Personal contact or familiarity with people having mental disorders was associated with decreased stigmatization. Contrarily, healthcare professionals showed higher perceived dangerousness (β = 0.04, p = 0.040). Finally, perceived dangerousness partially mediated the association between openness to experience (indirect effect = −  .57, 95% CI [− .71, − 0.43]) as well as agreeableness (indirect effect = − 0.57, 95% CI [− 0.74, − 0.39]) and desire for social distance. Although the explained variance in all analyses is < 10%, the current findings highlight the role of personality traits and self-esteem in areas of stigma. Therefore, future stigma research and anti-stigma campaigns should take individual differences into consideration. Moreover, the current study suggests that perceived dangerousness mediates the relationship between personality traits and desire for social distance. Further studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of such relationship. Finally, our results once more underline the necessity of increasing familiarity with mentally ill people and of improving the attitude of healthcare professionals towards persons with mental disorders.

Background: Coercion is routinely used in psychiatry. Its benefits and drawbacks are controversially debated. In addition, the majority of persons with mental health problems are exposed to stigmatization and are assumed to be dangerous. Stigmatization is associated with negative consequences for individuals with mental illness such as disapproval, social rejection, exclusion, and discrimination. Being subjected to coercive measures can increase the stigmatization of the affected persons, and stigmatization might lead to higher approval for coercion.Aims of the Study: This study aims to examine the approval for coercive measures in psychiatry by the general public, and to explore its relation with person- and situation-specific factors as well as with stigmatization.Method: We conducted a representative survey of the general population (N = 2,207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. Participants were asked to read a vignette depicting psychopathological symptoms of a fictitious character and indicate whether they would accept coercive measures for the person in the vignette. Desire for social distance and perceived dangerousness were assessed as measures of stigmatization.Findings: The person in the case vignette exhibiting dangerous behavior, showing symptoms of a psychotic disorder, being perceived as dangerous, and treatment being understood as helpful increased approval of coercion in general, while familiarity of the respondents with mental illness decreased approval.Conclusions: The public attitude regarding the approval of coercion in psychiatry is highly differentiated and largely follows the current legal framework and medical treatment guidelines. Higher approval occurred in situations of self-harm or harm to others and when coercive measures were thought to have a beneficial effect for the affected persons. A considerable part of the approval for coercion is predicted by stigmatization. With the increasing severity of coercive measures, the influence of person- and situation-specific factors and of familiarity with mental illness decreased and generalizing and stigmatizing attitudes became stronger predictors for the approval of more severe measures.