Compulsory treatment in patients’ homes in the Netherlands: what do mental health professionals think of this?

Waardt, Dieuwertje Anna de; Heijden, F.M.M.A. van der; Rugkåsa, Jorun; Mulder, Cornelis L.

doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02501-7

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Maybe this is because medication is something that mental health workers can easily provide (in contrast to proper housing or daytime activities) and it has proven to be effective in improving certain symptoms of mental health disorders. However, in a study on the opinions of mental health workers, mental health workers stressed that treatment not only involves medication, but other factors were also essential, such as a good therapeutic relationship, proper housing and access to jobs or daytime activities ( 69 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders’ opinions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMultiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.AimThis integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.MethodsWe performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.ResultsWe found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.ConclusionStakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients’ freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders’ opinions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often cannot or will not come to an rTMS clinic for treatment, especially twice a day, which studies have shown is efficacious [ 10 ]. Hence, an emergent view from many mental health professionals is that a viable solution may be inexpensive, portable home-use rTMS devices, particularly as post-COVID demand for telemedicine and home treatment for mental health disorders has remained high [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. A recent German study found that 50% of people would prefer mental health treatment at home, and another 20% indicated preference for online therapy [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Validation of Miniaturized Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Head Coils

Abbasi,

Alluri,

Leung

et al. 2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a rapidly developing therapeutic modality for the safe and effective treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders. However, clinical rTMS driving systems and head coils are large, heavy, and expensive, so miniaturized, affordable rTMS devices may facilitate treatment access for patients at home, in underserved areas, in field and mobile hospitals, on ships and submarines, and in space. The central component of a portable rTMS system is a miniaturized, lightweight coil. Such a coil, when mated to lightweight driving circuits, must be able to induce B and E fields of sufficient intensity for medical use. This paper newly identifies and validates salient theoretical considerations specific to the dimensional scaling and miniaturization of coil geometries, particularly figure-8 coils, and delineates novel, key design criteria. In this context, the essential requirement of matching coil inductance with the characteristic resistance of the driver switches is highlighted. Computer simulations predicted E- and B-fields which were validated via benchtop experiments. Using a miniaturized coil with dimensions of 76 mm × 38 mm and weighing only 12.6 g, the peak E-field was 87 V/m at a distance of 1.5 cm. Practical considerations limited the maximum voltage and current to 350 V and 3.1 kA, respectively; nonetheless, this peak E-field value was well within the intensity range, 60–120 V/m, generally held to be therapeutically relevant. The presented parameters and results delineate coil and circuit guidelines for a future miniaturized, power-scalable rTMS system able to generate pulsed E-fields of sufficient amplitude for potential clinical use.

show abstract

Compulsory treatment in patients’ homes in the Netherlands: what do mental health professionals think of this?

Cited by 2 publications

References 17 publications

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders’ opinions

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders’ opinions

Design and Validation of Miniaturized Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Head Coils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About