Cited by 494Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health services

How people get into mental health services: Stories of choice, coercion and “muddling through” from “first-timers”

Pescosolido, Bernice A., Gardner, Carol Brooks, Lubell, Keri M.·1998·Social Science & Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00160-3

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

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