Restraint prevalence and perceived coercion among psychiatric inpatients from South India: A prospective study
Abstract
Background The Indian Mental Health Care Act 2017 (MHCA -2017) advocates the duty to provide treatment in the least coercive manner. Little data exists on how Indian patients perceive coercion in medical settings.Aims To study the prevalence of restraint in a Indian psychiatric inpatient unit, and to examine the level of perceived coercion correlating to various forms of restraint.Methodology This is a hospital based prospective observational study. Two hundred patients were recruited through computer generated random number sampling. In eligible subjects, demographic and clinical data, restraints used and assessments related to perceived coercion were completed within 3 days of admission. Perceived coercion was reassessed at the time or within 3 days before discharge.Results In 66.5% one or more restraint measures were used, physical restraints in 20%, chemical restraints in 58%, seclusion in 18%, and involuntary medication in 32%. ECT is associated with the lowest level of perceived coercion followed by isolation/seclusion, chemical restraint, involuntary medication and physical restraint. Male gender, being married, rural background, low socioeconomic status, having a mood disorder, and alcohol or drug dependence was associated with an increased risk of physical or chemical restraint. Having a mood disorder, being from a rural area and a lower socioeconomic status was associated with being subjected to more than one form of coercion.Conclusion Restraint measures are more prevalent in psychiatric hospital care in India than in Europe. Physical restraint is particularly associted with higher perceived coercion.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Patients who experienced coercive measures such as physical restraint, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and seclusion were more likely to perceive coercion.
“Patients who experienced coercive measures such as physical restraint [111,124,127], mechanical restraint [150], chemical restraint [124], and seclusion [58,124] were more likely to perceive coercion.”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [124]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- Gowda, G. S., Lepping, P., Noorthoorn, E. O., Ali, S. F., Kumar, C. N., Raveesh, B. N., & Math, S. B.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IN)
- Bangor University (GB)
- GGNet (NL)
- Mysore Medical College (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Gowda, Guru S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Asian Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 36
- Pages
- 10-16
- ISSN
- 1876-2018 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2804610888
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Dutch government
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Restraint-Related Deaths
- Keywords
- physical restraint, chemical restraint, seclusion, involuntary medication, electroconvulsive therapy, perceived coercion, psychiatric inpatients, least restrictive alternative, mood disorders, alcohol and drug addiction, socioeconomic status, South India
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Coercion, Female, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, India, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Isolation, Prospective Studies, Restraint, Physical, Young Adult
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