Experiences of involuntary psychiatric admission decision-making: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of the perspectives of service users, informal carers, and professionals
Abstract
Background In involuntary psychiatric admission, used globally, professionals or caretakers decide upon hospitalization regardless of what the person with psychosocial disabilities decides. This raises clinical, ethical, legal, and human rights concerns, and it goes against Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). CRPD mandates that member states respect the autonomy of people with disabilities. Through Article 12, it recognizes full enjoyment of legal capacity for persons with disabilities. Implementation of Article 12 is challenging in every country, and exploring all the stakeholders' experiences at admission decision-making will help us to understand the challenges that the current psychiatry system poses for service users to exercise their autonomy and identify the areas where service users need support to have their rights, will, and preferences respected.Aim To describe the experiences of service users, informal carers, and professionals in involuntary psychiatric admission decision-making and throughout the subsequent involuntary admission. We explored the support that the service users need to have their rights, will, and preferences respected.Method A search of twelve databases in medicine, sociology, and law in Danish, English, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish was conducted in 2017 and 2018, limited to the past 10 years, using terms such as "involuntary," "admission," "mental illness," and "experience". The search identified 682 articles. Four researchers independently reviewed the articles to find those that completed original qualitative or mixed method studies exploring experiences of involuntary psychiatric admission among adults. We added seven publications from the articles' references, contacted experts in the field (no publications were added), and excluded two articles that were in German. Three researchers analyzed the articles' results using Thematic Analysis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019072874).Results Overall, 37 articles were included from 11 countries; they involved 731 service users, 100 informal carers, and 291 mental health professionals. We identified a lack of communication and a power imbalance among the stakeholders, which was exacerbated by the professionals' attitudes. At admission decision-making, the service users wanted to be heard and wanted to understand the situation. The families felt responsibility for the service users, they were careful not to ruin relationships, and they struggled to obtain support from the mental health system. Professionals believed that threats or harming others should lead to admission regardless of what the service users or their families felt. Professionals sometimes felt that it was not necessary to explain the information to the service users because they would not understand. Professionals were concerned and frustrated with difficulties in coordinating among themselves. During admission, service users struggled with the ward environment and relationship with staff; they most objected to coercion, such as forced medication. Families were frustrated that they were not involved in the treatment planning, especially as the service users moved toward discharge. The professionals often rationalized that coercion was necessary, and they believed that they knew what was best for the service users.Conclusions A lack of communication and a power imbalance among the stakeholders hindered respect for the service users' rights, will, and preferences. This was exacerbated by professionals rationalizing coercion and assuming that service users were incapable of understanding information. Services that encourage communication and overcome power imbalances (e.g. Crisis Plans, Family Group Conferencing) combined with stronger community mental health support will respect service users' rights, will, and preferences and avoid substituted decision-making on issues such as involuntary admission and forced medication.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 81 · Cited by 67
- Authors
- Sugiura, K., Pertega, E., & Holmberg, C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Sugiura, Kanna
- Venue
- International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 73
- Pages
- 101645
- ISSN
- 0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3106629794
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Keywords
- involuntary psychiatric admission, involuntary admission, decision-making, patient autonomy, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, mental health professionals, informal caregivers, family caregivers, power imbalance, communication, human rights, mental health law, service user experiences, mental health stigma, coercion in mental health care, legal capacity, mental health policy reform
- MeSH terms
- Involuntary Treatment, Psychiatric, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Coercion, Communication, Decision Making, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Caregivers, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Patient Rights, Patient Preference
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