oru.sePublikationer
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Informal coercion in psychiatry: a focus group study of attitudes and experiences of mental health professionals in ten countries
Department of Medical Specialties, Psychology and Pedagogy Applied, School of Biomedical Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Campus Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain.
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry (WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón de Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, ISSN 0933-7954, E-ISSN 1433-9285, Vol. 50, no 8, 1297-1308 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Whilst formal coercion in psychiatry is regulated by legislation, other interventions that are often referred to as informal coercion are less regulated. It remains unclear to what extent these interventions are, and how they are used, in mental healthcare. This paper aims to identify the attitudes and experiences of mental health professionals towards the use of informal coercion across countries with differing sociocultural contexts.

Focus groups with mental health professionals were conducted in ten countries with different sociocultural contexts (Canada, Chile, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom).

Five common themes were identified: (a) a belief that informal coercion is effective; (b) an often uncomfortable feeling using it; (c) an explicit as well as (d) implicit dissonance between attitudes and practice-with wider use of informal coercion than is thought right in theory; (e) a link to principles of paternalism and responsibility versus respect for the patient's autonomy.

A disapproval of informal coercion in theory is often overridden in practice. This dissonance occurs across different sociocultural contexts, tends to make professionals feel uneasy, and requires more debate and guidance.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 50, no 8, 1297-1308 p.
Keyword [en]
Autonomy, Ethics, International comparison, Paternalism, Sociocultural context
National Category
Psychiatry
Research subject
Psychiatry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-45671DOI: 10.1007/s00127-015-1032-3ISI: 000358676900015PubMedID: 25720809Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84938415715OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-45671DiVA: diva2:849407
Available from: 2015-08-28 Created: 2015-08-28 Last updated: 2017-10-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pelto-Piri, Veikko
By organisation
School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden
In the same journal
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Psychiatry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 342 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf