PURPOSE: To explore involuntary patients' retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong. METHODS: Involuntary patients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: The study illustrates why some patients view their involuntary hospitalisation positively, whereas others believe it was wrong. This knowledge could inform the development of interventions to improve patients' views and treatment experiences.
PURPOSE: To explore involuntarypatients' retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong. METHODS:Involuntarypatients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: The study illustrates why some patients view their involuntary hospitalisation positively, whereas others believe it was wrong. This knowledge could inform the development of interventions to improve patients' views and treatment experiences.
Authors: C W Lidz; E P Mulvey; S K Hoge; B L Kirsch; J Monahan; M Eisenberg; W Gardner; L H Roth Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Christina Katsakou; Len Bowers; Tim Amos; Richard Morriss; Diana Rose; Til Wykes; Stefan Priebe Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Z Xu; B Lay; N Oexle; T Drack; M Bleiker; S Lengler; C Blank; M Müller; B Mayer; W Rössler; N Rüsch Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Lucie Kalisova; Jiri Raboch; Alexander Nawka; Gaia Sampogna; Libor Cihal; Thomas W Kallert; Georgi Onchev; Anastasia Karastergiou; Valeria Del Vecchio; Andrzej Kiejna; Tomasz Adamowski; Francisco Torres-Gonzales; Jorge A Cervilla; Stephan Priebe; Domenico Giacco; Lars Kjellin; Algirdas Dembinskas; Andrea Fiorillo Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Nicolas Rüsch; Mario Müller; Barbara Lay; Patrick W Corrigan; Roland Zahn; Thekla Schönenberger; Marco Bleiker; Silke Lengler; Christina Blank; Wulf Rössler Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Rose McGranahan; Zivile Jakaite; Alice Edwards; Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Mike Slade; Stefan Priebe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.692