Cited by 32Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Trust, Deals and Authority: Community Mental Health Professionals’ Experiences of Influencing Reluctant Patients

Rugkåsa, Jorun, Canvin, Krysia, Sinclair, Julia, Sulman, Anna, Burns, Tom·2014·Community Mental Health Journal

Abstract

The emphasis on care in the community in current mental health policy poses challenges for community mental health professionals with responsibility for patients who do not wish to receive services. Previous studies report that professionals employ a range of behaviors to influence reluctant patients. We investigated professionals' own conceptualizations of such influencing behaviors through focus groups with community teams in England. Participants perceived that good, trusting relationships are a prerequisite to the negotiation of reciprocal agreements that, in turn, lead to patient-centred care. They described that although asserting professional authority sometimes is necessary, it can be a potential threat to relationships. Balancing potentially conflicting processes-one based on reciprocity and the other on authority-represents a challenge in clinical practice. By providing descriptive accounts of micro-level dynamics of clinical encounters, our analysis shows how the authoritative aspect of the professional role has the potential to undermine therapeutic interactions with reluctant patients. We argue that such micro-level analyses are necessary to enhance our understanding of how patient-centered mental health policy may be implemented through clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10597-014-9720-0

Cites

68 of 68 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rugkåsa, J., Canvin, K., Sinclair, J., Sulman, A., & Burns, T.
Affiliations
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Rugkåsa, Jorun
Venue
Community Mental Health Journal
Published
2014-03-25
Volume
50
Issue
8
Pages
886-895
ISSN
  • 0010-3853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2789
OpenAlex
W2093262689
Cited by
32
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Community Mental Health Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
professional authority, trust, reciprocity, patient-centered care, therapeutic relationship, patient encounters, mental health policy implementation, community-based care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Community Mental Health Services, England, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Professional-Patient Relations, State Medicine, Focus Groups, Patient-Centered Care, Professional Role, Trust

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