Use of coercive measures during involuntary hospitalization: findings from ten European countries
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
20889640
DOI
10.1176/ps.2010.61.10.1012
PII: 61/10/1012
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hospitalizace * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nátlak * MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- ústavy pro duševně nemocné MeSH
- zodpovědnost duševně nemocného * MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
OBJECTIVE: Involuntary treatment in mental health care is a sensitive but rarely studied issue. This study was part of the European Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry and Harmonization of Best Clinical Practice (EUNOMIA) project. It assessed and compared the use of coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient facilities in ten European countries. METHODS: The sample included 2,030 involuntarily admitted patients. Data were obtained on coercive measures (physical restraint, seclusion, and forced medication). RESULTS: In total, 1,462 coercive measures were used with 770 patients (38%). The percentage of patients receiving coercive measures in each country varied between 21% and 59%. The most frequent reason for prescribing coercive measures was patient aggression against others. In eight of the countries, the most frequent measure used was forced medication, and in two of the countries mechanical restraint was the most frequent measure used. Seclusion was rarely administered and was reported in only six countries. A diagnosis of schizophrenia and more severe symptoms were associated with a higher probability of receiving coercive measures. CONCLUSIONS: Coercive measures were used in a substantial group of involuntarily admitted patients across Europe. Their use appeared to depend on diagnosis and the severity of illness, but use was also heavily influenced by the individual country. Variation across countries may reflect differences in societal attitudes and clinical traditions.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org