How people get into mental health services: Stories of choice, coercion and “muddling through” from “first-timers”
Abstract
Previous work examining how individuals enter mental health treatment comes either from the health services utilization tradition, which implicitly assumes that clients make decisions to seek care, or from the socio-legal perspective, which examines how clients are forced into care. This paper draws from the Network-Episode Model to systematically consider the different social processes through which people come to enter psychiatric treatment by exploring the "stories" told by individuals making their first major contact with the mental health system. We combine the use of qualitative and quantitative methods to examine data from the Indianapolis Network Mental Health Study, a longitudinal study of individuals in treatment at the largest public and voluntary facilities in the city. We analyze detailed self-reports of how they came to use mental health services, classifying these stories as "choice," "coercion," or "muddling through". Using multinomial logit analyses, we examine how factors such as gender, race and diagnosis shape the types of stories that individuals tell. The preliminary results indicate that fewer than half of the stories (45.9%) match the notion of choice underlying the dominant utilization theories. Almost a quarter of respondents (22.9%) report coercion and nearly one-third (31.2%) tell stories that lack a clear agent. Diagnosis and social networks tap differences in how individuals experience entry into care. Individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder or who have larger, closer social networks are more likely to tell stories of coercion. We discuss the theoretical, methodological, and clinical implications of findings drawn from this examination of clients' stories.
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?
Supervisors and co-workers were sometimes the first to encourage or demand the person seek professional help.
“with one study documenting that they were sometimes the first to encourage or demand the person seek professional help [40].”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Larger and closely tied social networks could exert coercion, pressuring individuals to receive treatment.
“However, larger and closely tied social networks could also exert coercion, pressuring individuals to receive treatment [40]”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Supervisors and co-workers were vectors of coercive influence in treatment decisions.
“Supervisors and co-workers were also vectors of coercive influence in treatment decisions”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 494
- Authors
- Pescosolido, B. A., Gardner, C. B., & Lubell, K. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pescosolido, Bernice A.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 275-286
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147895716
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 9.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r29mh044780-05, 5k01mh000849-03, 5r24mh051669-05)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R24MH 51669, K01MH00849, R29MH44780)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Keywords
- help-seeking, involuntary treatment, social networks, bipolar disorder, gender differences, racial differences, diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Coercion, Decision Making, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Indiana, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Social Support, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies
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