Search

Purpose The present study investigates perceived coercion in psychiatric inpatients under prescribed antipsychotic medication without a court order. The objective of this study was to investigate whether and to what extent involuntary and voluntary inpatients feel coerced to take their medication and which factors affect perceived coercion. Methods Voluntarily and involuntarily admitted patients (55 and 36, respectively) were interviewed about the extent of perceived coercion. In addition, socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. The Admission Experience Scale (aAES) was used to assess perceived coercion concerning medication. To measure insight into illness, attitude towards medication, and symptom severity, we used a questionnaire on insight into illness (FKE-10), the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-24), respectively. Results Voluntarily treated patients experienced significantly less coercion when taking prescribed medication in inpatient settings than involuntarily treated patients. The experience of coercion was not related to socio-demographic or clinical variables nor to the BPRS-24 score, but to insight into illness and attitude towards medication. Patients who had experienced at least one coercive measure during the index hospital stay showed a higher level of perceived coercion. Conclusion Perceived coercion related to medication is dependent on insight into illness and experience of previous coercive interventions rather than on the severity of psychopathological symptoms. These findings are very similar to a previous study in a forensic psychiatric sample. Having experience of at least one coercive measure seems to be a decisive aspect of the extent of the patients’ perceived coercion.

The purpose of the study was to examine the long-term influence of involuntary hospitalization on medication adherence, engagement in out-patient treatment and perceived coercion to treatment participation. In a naturalistic observational multi-centre study, 290 voluntarily and 84 involuntarily hospitalized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder had been followed up over a period of 2 years with half-yearly assessments. Assessments included self-rated medication adherence, externally judged medication adherence by blood levels, engagement in treatment and perceived coercion. The statistical analyses were based on multilevel hierarchical modelling of longitudinal data. Level and development of the outcome was controlled for involuntariness, for sociodemographic characteristics and clinical history. Involuntariness of the index-hospitalization did not have an effect on the development of treatment engagement or medication adherence judged by blood levels in the course of the follow-up period when the models were controlled for sociodemographic variables and clinical history. It was associated, though, with a continuously lower self-rated medication adherence. Moreover, former involuntarily hospitalized patients more often felt coerced in several treatment aspects at the follow-up assessments. Yet, there was no difference between the voluntary and involuntary group with regard to the development of the levels of adherence or coercion experiences over time. Involuntary hospitalization does not seem to impair future treatment engagement in patients with schizophrenia, but formerly involuntarily hospitalized patients continue to be more sensitive to subjective or real coercion in their treatment and more vulnerable to medication non-adherence. Hereby, their risk of future involuntary hospitalization might be increased.

In the Table 3 of the original publication, the value ‘‘32’’ in 5th column has been misplaced. It should belong to the third row instead of the fourth row. Language: en

Objective The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Methods Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. Results There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Conclusions Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.

To investigate the incidence of coercive measures in standard psychiatric care in different psychiatric hospitals. We developed a common documentation of mechanical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion, and introduced it in 10 participating hospitals. We developed software able to process the data and to calculate four key indicators for routine clinical use. 9.5% of 36,690 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 F0) (28.0%). Coercive measures were applied a mean 5.4 times per case and lasted a mean 9.7 h each. The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. Use of detailed guidelines for seclusion and restraint was associated with a lower incidence of coercive measures. Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. Suggestions on how to cope with ethical and technical problems in the processing of large multi-site data sets in routine clinical use are made.

This study was conducted to compare attitudes of psychiatrists, other professionals, and laypeople towards compulsory admission and treatment of patients with schizophrenia in different European countries. Three case reports of patients with schizophrenia were presented to N=1,737 persons: 235 in England, 622 in Germany, 319 in Hungary, and 561 in Switzerland; 298 were psychiatrists, 687 other psychiatric or medical professionals, and 752 laypeople. The case reports presented typical clinical situations with refusal of consent to treatment (first episode and social withdrawal, recurrent episode and moderate danger to others and patient with multiple episodes and severe self-neglect). The participants were asked whether they would agree with compulsory admission and compulsory neuroleptic treatment. The rates of agreement varied between 50.8 and 92.1% across countries and between 41.1 and 93.6% across the different professional groups. In all countries, psychologists and social workers supported compulsory procedures significantly less than the psychiatrists who were in tune with laypeople and nurses. Country differences were highly significant showing more agreement with compulsion in Hungary and England and less in Germany and Switzerland (odds ratios up to 4.33). Own history of mental illness and having mentally ill relatives had no major impact on the decisions. Evidence suggests that compulsory procedures are based on traditions and personal attitudes to a considerable degree. Further research should provide empirical data and more definite criteria for indications of compulsive measures to achieve a common ethical framework for those critical decisions across Europe.

Several first-episode studies of schizophrenia suggest that many patients experience psychotic symptoms for a long time before receiving appropriate treatment. To reduce the time of untreated psychosis, it is necessary to know the patients' pathways to psychiatric care. This study was designed to examine patients' help-seeking contacts and the delays on their pathways to psychiatric care in Germany.Sixty-six patients with first episode of schizophrenia spectrum psychosis were assessed by the Interview for the Retrospective Assessment of the Onset of Schizophrenia (IRAOS) and were interviewed about their help-seeking contacts before psychiatric admission.In contrast to other findings of long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), 53% of our patients were admitted after 8 weeks (median) of untreated positive symptoms, although the mean value of 71 weeks corresponds well with the results of other studies. There were important differences in DUP depending on which kind of statistical parameter (median or mean) was used. In contrast to studies from other countries, only 18% of our patients had their first contact with a general practitioner. However, this was the fastest way to psychiatric admission. No differences were found between patients with short (1 year) and long (1 year) DUP in the duration of time from the first help-seeking contact up to admission.In Germany, a large number of mental health professionals in private practice or different services of psychosocial contact facilities exist in every region and general practitioners are not so important as a link to psychiatric care, although they seem to be functioning well if it is necessary. Therefore, programs designed to reduce the delay of treatment should focus less on general practitioners than on other health services.