Cited by 7Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcarePsychiatric care and mental health services

Compulsory admissions and preferences in decision-making in patients with psychotic and bipolar disorders

Morán-Sánchez, Inés, Bernal-López, María A., Pérez-Cárceles, Maria D.·2020·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose Participation in medical decisions and taking into account patients' values and preferences are especially important for psychiatric patients who may be treated against their will. The increasing rates of coercive measures and the underlying clinical, ethical, and legal issues highlight the need to examine their use in psychiatry. Although limited congruence in decision-making preferences may be on the basis of these coercive practices, this issue has not been adequately addressed. We explore the relationship between compulsory admissions and congruence in decision-making preferences in mental health settings.Methods Cross-sectional study among 107 outpatients with DSM diagnoses of schizophrenia of bipolar disorder using the Control Preference Scale to assess congruence in decision-making experienced and preferred style. History of compulsory admissions was obtained through review of available records. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used.Results 70% of patients reported experiencing their preferred style of decision-making and 44% patients had history of compulsory admissions. These patients were more autonomous and preferred to take a more active role. The degree of congruence was lower in patients with previous compulsory admissions. The best predictors of compulsory admissions were not having a regular doctor and the unmatched participation preferences.Conclusions Patients who experienced a different level of participation in decision-making than desired more frequently had compulsory admissions. We propose to assess participation preferences each time a relevant treatment decision is about to be made and tailor care accordingly. We identified several factors leading to compulsory admissions that can be modified to prevent further coercive measures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-019-01809-4

Cites

46 of 46 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
Morán-Sánchez, I., Bernal-López, M. A., & Pérez-Cárceles, M. D.
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2019-11-14
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
571-580
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2987870777
Cited by
7
References
46
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
involuntary admission, involuntary treatment, decision-making preferences, patient autonomy, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychiatric outpatients, Control Preferences Scale, patient participation in treatment decisions, continuity of care
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Psychotic Disorders, Spain

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