CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

Perceived fairness as main determinant of patients' satisfaction with care during psychiatric hospitalisation: An observational study

Open access
Silva, Benedetta, Pauli, Guillaume, Diringer, Oana, Morandi, Stéphane, Bonsack, Charles, Golay, Philippe·2022·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101793
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction with care is widely recognized as one of the most important indicator of quality in mental health care. It can impact several treatment outcomes, such as treatment adherence and engagement with services. At the same time, as an outcome in itself, satisfaction with care is also affected by several factors, first and foremost by being coerced. The main aim of this study was to test if perceiving treatment pressures as fair and effective could positively impact patient satisfaction, even more than formal coercive measures. METHODS: Globally, 133 voluntary and involuntary inpatients were interviewed. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, including history of previous experiences of formal coercion and legal status of the hospitalisation, were collected through a structured questionnaire and medical charts. The participants were also asked to complete the Index of Fairness and Index of Effectiveness tools as well as a structured questionnaire on satisfaction with care. Simple and multiple linear regressions were performed. RESULTS: Although several factors were found to affect satisfaction with care when taken independently, perceived fairness was the stronger predictor of both satisfaction with treatment (β =.234; p = .022) and satisfaction with decision-making involvement (β =.360; p < .001) when controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results point to the paramount importance of developing and implementing interventions that promote procedural fairness in psychiatric treatment and thereby improve patient satisfaction while reducing the risk of disengagement with care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101793

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Involuntary treatment was associated with an increased risk of the admission being perceived as coercive or procedurally unfair when compared to those receiving voluntary care.

    “Involuntary treatment is by definition associated with objective coercion, but it was also associated with an increased risk of the admission being perceived as coercive (for example experiencing a lack of control or agency) or procedurally unfair when compared to those receiving voluntary care (10,11,15,18–31).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that perceived coercion during admission is related to perceived procedural justice and fairness. But the paper does not establish that involuntary patients were more likely than voluntary patients to perceive their admission as coercive or unfair; its reported comparison concerns satisfaction with decision-making, not those perceptions. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most literature indicates that people are less satisfied with involuntary care as measured by structured assessment tools.

    “In general, most literature indicates that people are less satisfied with involuntary care as measured by structured assessment tools including the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale or the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (10,13,66,104–110) and measures of humiliation and negative affective response (24,110,111).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (section 3; page unavailable) report lower satisfaction with decision-making involvement among involuntarily hospitalised patients in a simple analysis, and lower satisfaction with treatment among patients with a history of coercion. The paper does not establish that most literature finds lower overall satisfaction with involuntary care; its Instruments section (2.2; page unavailable) uses a different structured questionnaire, not the two named scales. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • All studies that examined patient knowledge of legal status found significant confusion among both people treated on an involuntary and voluntary basis regarding their legal rights or status.

    “All studies that examined patient knowledge of legal status found significant confusion among both people treated on an involuntary and voluntary basis regarding their legal rights or status (10–15).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Instruments and Statistical analysis sections (pages unavailable) say legal status was recorded as a study variable, while the Results address satisfaction with care. Searches for confusion, knowledge of legal status, and awareness of legal rights found no passage reporting whether voluntary or involuntary patients understood their rights or status. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Silva, B., Pauli, G., Diringer, O., Morandi, S., Bonsack, C., & Golay, P.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Silva, Benedetta
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
82
Pages
101793
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101793
OpenAlex
W4224299535
Cited by
10
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Keywords
perceived fairness, patient satisfaction, psychiatric hospitalization, procedural justice, coercion in mental health care, involuntary admission, voluntary admission, medication adherence, mental health care quality
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Coercion, Hospitalization, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Patient Satisfaction

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