CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealth, Medicine and Society

Family, Clinician, and Patient Perceptions of Coercion in Mental Hospital Admission

Hoge, Steven K, Lidz, Charles W, Eisenberg, Marlene, Monahan, John, Bennett, Nancy, Gardner, William, Mulvey, Edward P, Roth, Loren·1998·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/s0160-2527(98)00002-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0160-2527(98)00002-8

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Families did not recognise the experience as coercive to the same degree as patients.

    “By contrast, families did not recognise the experience as coercive to the same degree (21).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Perceived coercion was associated with decreased involvement in, and control over, care.

    “In general, perceived coercion was associated with decreased involvement in, and control over, care (21,31,32).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Two papers examining perceived coercion found that involuntary admission was more likely to lead to differences in perceived coercion between patients and their families.

    “Two papers examining perceived coercion found that involuntary admission was more likely to lead to differences in perceived coercion between patients and their families (21,126).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Four studies specifically reported that a lack of procedural justice heightened perceived coercion even among voluntarily admitted patients.

    “Four studies specifically reported that a lack of procedural justice heightened perceived coercion even among voluntarily admitted patients [24,34,42,105].”

    From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

  • 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 [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hoge, S. K., Lidz, C. W., Eisenberg, M., Monahan, J., Bennett, N., Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Roth, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-03
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
131-146
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0160-2527(98)00002-8
OpenAlex
W2527523
Cited by
54
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
coercion, involuntary psychiatric admission, psychiatric hospitals, family perceptions, clinician perceptions, patient perspectives, involuntary treatment, mental health law
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attitude of Health Personnel, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Family, Female, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Male, Pennsylvania, Regression Analysis, Social Perception, Virginia, Observer Variation

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