Two scales for measuring patients' perceptions for coercion during mental hospital admission

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA 15213, USA.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law (Impact Factor: 0.96). 06/1993; 11(3):307-21. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370110308
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Legal and extra-legal coercion are pervasive in mental hospital admission and there are sharp disputes about its appropriate role. This article presents two scales for measuring psychiatric patients' perceptions of coercion during hospital admission and reports data on these scales' internal consistency. We measure patients' perceptions of coercion by asking questions, in either an interview or questionnaire format, about their experience of lack of control, choice, influence, and freedom in hospital admission. Patients' responses to questions about their perceptions of coercion were highly internally consistent. The internal consistency of the scale was robust with respect to variation in site, instrument format, patient population, and interview procedure. Correspondence analysis was used to construct two numerical scales of perceived coercion.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goals of the current study were to expand the content domain and further validate the Coercion Assessment Scale (CAS), a measure of perceived coercion for criminally involved substance abusers being recruited into research. Unlike the few existing measures of this construct, the CAS identifies specific external sources of pressure that may influence one's decision to participate. In Phase 1, we conducted focus groups with criminal justice clients and stakeholders to expand the instrument by identifying additional sources of pressure. In Phase 2, we evaluated the expanded measure (i.e., endorsement rates, reliability, validity) in an ongoing research trial. Results identified new sources of pressure and provided evidence supporting the CAS's utility and reliability over time as well as convergent and discriminative validity. © The Author(s) 2014.
    Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10/2014; 9(4):60-70. DOI:10.1177/1556264614544100 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Despite widespread use internationally, there is no convincing evidence that community treatment orders (CTO) (legal regimes making out-patient treatment compulsory), reduce readmission rates or have wider patient benefit. The primary and secondary outcomes of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) (hospitalisation) showed no benefit. This article will, first, test the effect of community compulsion on wider clinical and social outcomes and on patients' experiences of services and the use of treatment pressure and second, explore differential effects in different groups of patients.MethodOCTET is a RCT of CTO effectiveness. Three hundred and thirty-six patients were randomised and data for the 333 eligible patients were collected from interviews and medical records at baseline, 6 and 12 months.ResultsThere was no significant difference at 12 months between the two arms in any of the reported outcomes, except a small difference in patients' view of the effectiveness of treatment pressure, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Two statistically significant interactions were found in the subgroup analysis: symptoms interacted with age and with education, but no pattern was demonstrated.ConclusionCTOs do not have benefit on any of the tested outcomes, or for any subgroup of patients. Their continued use should be carefully reconsidered.
    Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 12/2014; DOI:10.1111/acps.12373 · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Evaluations of the recovery orientation of mental health services have focused on outpatient and rehabilitative rather than acute inpatient facilities. Aim: This naturalistic observational study seeks to evaluate the subjective perspective and functional outcome of inpatients before and after structural alterations. The changes made were the introduction of treatment conferences and conjoint treatment planning, reduction of the total time spent on reports about patients (in their absence), and recovery-oriented staff training on an acute psychiatric unit of the University Hospital of Psychiatry, Zurich, Switzerland. Methods: During 1 year (2011/2012) eligible patients on the study unit were interviewed on a voluntary basis using established instruments to assess several recovery-relevant aspects. Two different samples (before and after the project; n = 34 and n = 29) were compared with regard to subjective parameters (e.g. patients’ attitudes toward recovery, quality of life, perceived coercion, treatment satisfaction, and hope), clinical and socio-demographic basic data, as well as the functional outcome according to the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Results: Some patient attitudes towards recovery and their self-assessment of the recovery process improved during the study. Other subjective parameters remained stable between samples. Functional outcome was better in subjects who were treated after the implementation of the new concept. The length of stay remained unchanged. Conclusions: The implementation of recovery-oriented structures and providing the necessary theoretical underpinning on an acute psychiatric unit is feasible and can have an impact on attitudes and knowledge of personal recovery.
    Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 09/2014; 69(3). DOI:10.3109/08039488.2014.959561 · 1.50 Impact Factor