Cited by 167Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Psychiatric patients’ views on why their involuntary hospitalisation was right or wrong: a qualitative study

Katsakou, Christina, Rose, Diana, Amos, Tim, Bowers, Len, McCabe, Rosemarie, Oliver, Danielle, Wykes, Til, Priebe, Stefan·2012·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose To explore involuntary patients' retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong.Methods Involuntary patients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis.Results Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation.Conclusions The study illustrates why some patients view their involuntary hospitalisation positively, whereas others believe it was wrong. This knowledge could inform the development of interventions to improve patients' views and treatment experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-011-0427-z

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katsakou, C., Rose, D., Amos, T., Bowers, L., McCabe, R., Oliver, D., Wykes, T., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Katsakou, Christina
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2011-08-24
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
1169-1179
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2074245334
Cited by
167
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (0230072)
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
involuntary hospitalisation, psychiatric patients, patient perspectives, coercion in mental health care, patient autonomy, retrospective view, ambivalence, community mental health services, treatment experience
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, England, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review