Perceived coercion and change in perceived need for admission in patients hospitalized for eating disorders
ABSTRACT Ambivalence toward treatment is characteristic of eating disorders, and patients are often admitted to inpatient programs under pressure from clinicians, family, friends, educators, or employers. This study evaluated patient perceptions of the admissions process and perceived need for hospitalization and assessed whether these perceptions remain stable in the short term.
A total of 139 patients with eating disorders completed a 13-item self-report scale on the admission experience when they were admitted to a behavioral inpatient specialty program and again 2 weeks into their hospitalization.
Patients with anorexia nervosa reported higher levels of perceived coercion and pressure and a lower sense of procedural justice than did those with bulimia. Patients under 18 (N=35) reported more perceived coercion than did adult patients (N=104), and a trend was noted for them to disagree that they needed hospitalization. Perceptions of coercion, of pressure by others toward hospitalization, and of procedural justice were stable in the short term. However, of the 46 patients (30 of them adults) who initially did not endorse needing admission, 20 patients (17 of them adults) changed their minds by 2 weeks into hospitalization and agreed that they needed hospital admission.
Nearly half of patients with eating disorders who denied a need for treatment on admission converted to acknowledging that they needed to be admitted within 2 weeks of hospitalization. Since treatment avoidance is associated with poor outcome, these findings suggest a need for studies assessing the long-term outcome and ethics of pressuring patients with eating disorders into treatment.
- SourceAvailable from: Victoria Mountford[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study aims to investigate treatment drop-out, and the associated roles of motivation, alliance, and behaviour change exhibited over the first four weeks of hospitalised treatment for anorexia. 90 participants meeting DSM-IV criteria for anorexia nervosa completed questionnaires at admission, and four weeks into treatment. Weight data was collected over this same time period. At the end of treatment, participants were categorised into completer or premature termination groups. The overall rate of premature termination was 57.8%. Those who prematurely terminated treatment demonstrated lower discharge BMI (p<.0005), and weight gain (p<.0005) than those who completed. Therapeutic alliance proved significantly different between outcome groups at admission (p=.004). End-of-treatment outcomes for those who do not complete treatment are invariably poor. Therapeutic alliance appears to be a particularly important factor in this area.Eating behaviors 04/2013; 14(2):119-23. DOI:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.007
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The compulsory treatment of anorexia nervosa is a contentious issue. Research suggests that patients are often subject to compulsion and coercion even without formal compulsory treatment orders. Research also suggests that patients suffering from anorexia nervosa can change their minds in retrospect about compulsion. Qualitative interviewing methods were used to explore the views of 29 young women concerning compulsion and coercion in the treatment of anorexia nervosa. The participants were aged between 15 to 26years old, and were suffering or had recently suffered from anorexia nervosa at the time of interview. Compulsion and formal compulsory treatment of anorexia nervosa were considered appropriate where the condition was life-threatening. The perception of coercion was moderated by relationships. What mattered most to participants was not whether they had experienced restriction of freedom or choice, but the nature of their relationships with parents and mental health professionals. People with anorexia nervosa appear to agree with the necessity of compulsory treatment in order to save life. The perception of coercion is complex and not necessarily related to the degree of restriction of freedom.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 11/2009; 33(1):13-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.10.003 · 1.19 Impact Factor