CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Perceived coercion among patients admitted to acute wards in Norway

Iversen, Knut Ivar, Høyer, Georg, Sexton, Hal, Grønli, Ole Kristian·2002·Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1080/08039480260389352
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several studies suggest that the patient's experience of being coerced, during the admission process to mental hospitals, does not necessarily correspond with their legal status. Rather, perceived coercion appears to be associated with having experienced force and/or threats (negative pressures), as well as feeling that their views were not taken into consideration in the admission process (process exclusion). We investigated perceived coercion, among patients admitted both voluntarily and involuntarily, to acute wards in Norway. We used a visual analogue scale (the Coercion Ladder, CL) and the MacArthur Perceived Coercion Scale (MPCS), a five-item questionnaire, to measure perceived coercion. Two hundred and twenty-three consecutively admitted patients to four acute wards were included and interviewed within 5 days of admission. Many patients reported high levels of perceived coercion in the admission process, with the involuntary group experiencing significantly higher levels than the voluntary group. However, 32% of voluntarily admitted patients perceived high levels, and 41% of involuntarily admitted patients perceived low levels of coercion. Legal status did not significantly predict perceived coercion on either the MPCS or the CL after taking negative pressures and process exclusion into account. Applying a visual analogue scale (CL) seems to provide a useful measure of patients' perception of coercion and one that largely parallels the MPCS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08039480260389352

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Some studies found no significant association between perceived coercion and legal status at admission.

    “However, some studies found no significant association between perceived coercion and legal status at admission [54,89,156]”

    From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [54]

  • Among voluntarily admitted people, the proportion who did not correctly state their legal status ranged from 1% to 12%.

    “Among voluntarily admitted people, the proportion who did not correctly state their legal status ranged from 1% to 12% (12,15).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

  • 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 [15]

  • The proportion of people in involuntary care who did not know their legal status ranged from 12% to 45%, with a median of 28.5%.

    “The proportion of people in involuntary care who did not know their legal status ranged from 12% (12) to 45% (11,15), with a median of 28.5%.”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

  • 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 [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Iversen, K. I., Høyer, G., Sexton, H., & Grønli, O. K.
Affiliations
UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
ORCID
Grønli, Ole Kristian
Venue
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2002-01
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
433-439
ISSN
  • 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-9488
  • 1502-4725
DOI
10.1080/08039480260389352
OpenAlex
W2090022664
Cited by
101
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Socialdepartementet
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
perceived coercion, involuntary admission, voluntary admission, psychiatric hospital admissions, acute psychiatric wards, legal status, negative pressure, patient experience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Coercion, Female, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Norway, Patient Admission, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires

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