IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v68y2022i2p457-464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behind the screen of voluntary psychiatric hospital admissions: A qualitative exploration of treatment pressures and informal coercion in experiences of patients in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Justyna Klingemann
  • Piotr Åšwitaj
  • Antonio Lasalvia
  • Stefan Priebe

Abstract

Background: Despite the extensive research and intense debate on coercion in psychiatry we have seen in recent years, little is still known about formally voluntarily admitted patients, who experience high levels of perceived coercion during their admission to a psychiatric hospital. Aims: The purpose of the present research was to explore forms of treatment pressure put on patients, not only by clinicians, but also by patients’ relatives, during admission to psychiatric hospitals in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. Methods: Data were obtained via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients ( N  = 108) diagnosed with various mental disorders (ICD-10: F20–F49) hospitalised in psychiatric inpatient wards. Maximum variation sampling was applied to ensure the inclusion of patients with different socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. The study applied a common methodology to secure comparability and consistency across participating countries. The qualitative data from each country were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to theoretical thematic analysis. Results: The results of the analysis confirm that the legal classifications of involuntary and voluntary hospitalisation do not capture the fundamental distinctions between patients who are and are not coerced into treatment. Our findings show that the level of perceived coercion in voluntary patients ranges from ‘persuasion’ and ‘interpersonal leverage’ (categorised as treatment pressures) to ‘threat’, ‘someone else’s decisions’ and ‘violence’ (categorised as informal coercion). Conclusion: We suggest that the term ‘treatment pressures’ be applied to techniques for convincing patients to follow a suggested course of treatment by offering advice and support in getting professional help, as well as using emotional arguments based on the personal relationship with the patient. In turn, we propose to reserve the term ‘informal coercion’ to describe practices for pressuring patients into treatment by threatening them, by making them believe that they have no choice, and by taking away their power to make autonomous decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Justyna Klingemann & Piotr Åšwitaj & Antonio Lasalvia & Stefan Priebe, 2022. "Behind the screen of voluntary psychiatric hospital admissions: A qualitative exploration of treatment pressures and informal coercion in experiences of patients in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdo," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 68(2), pages 457-464, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:68:y:2022:i:2:p:457-464
    DOI: 10.1177/00207640211003942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207640211003942
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00207640211003942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norvoll, Reidun & Pedersen, Reidar, 2016. "Exploring the views of people with mental health problems' on the concept of coercion: Towards a broader socio-ethical perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 204-211.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Verbeke, Evi & Vanheule, Stijn & Cauwe, Joachim & Truijens, Femke & Froyen, Brenda, 2019. "Coercion and power in psychiatry: A qualitative study with ex-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 89-96.
    2. Newbigging, Karen & Ridley, Julie, 2018. "Epistemic struggles: The role of advocacy in promoting epistemic justice and rights in mental health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 36-44.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:68:y:2022:i:2:p:457-464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.