Patients’ perception of coercion in acute psychiatric wards. An intervention study
Abstract
A project based on the "Breakthrough series" for reducing the patients' perception of coercion in psychiatric acute wards is presented. Three different measures were chosen: 1) engagement of the patients in the formulation of the treatment plan, 2) frequent and regular joint patient and staff evaluations, and 3) renegotiation of treatment plans if necessary. A 5-week baseline was followed by a 12-week intervention period. Anonymously administered self-rating scales were used: the Coercion Ladder and the SPRI questionnaire. Two questions addressing aversive events (verbal and physical) were added. Participation rates were 86% (patients). Data from 190 admissions were analysed. The interventions resulted in only marginal changes in two of eight parameters (the staff's respect and understanding and on total satisfaction with the received help) and no change in experienced coercion. Seclusion accounted for 46% of the explained variance (62%) and participation in the formulation of the treatment plan for only 8% in regression analyses where perceived coercion was the dependent variable; a third of the patients had experienced insulting communication from the staff, and 10% physical harassment during their stay. It was concluded that: 1) the average value of experienced coercion was low, 2) taking part in the planning and evaluation of the treatment had marginal effect on experienced coercion, and 3) the main predictor of felt coercion was seclusion. Actions taken primarily to control behaviour were more strongly related to perceived coercion than aspects of compulsory treatment. More thorough analysis of seclusion and improved routines for its implementation are needed.
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?
Patients who experienced coercive measures such as physical restraint, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and seclusion were more likely to perceive coercion.
“Patients who experienced coercive measures such as physical restraint [111,124,127], mechanical restraint [150], chemical restraint [124], and seclusion [58,124] were more likely to perceive coercion.”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [58]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Sørgaard, K. W.
- Affiliations
- Nordland Hospital Trust (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Sørgaard, Knut W.
- Venue
- Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 299-304
- ISSN
- 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
- 0803-9488
- 1502-4725
- OpenAlex
- W1965384690
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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, acute psychiatric wards, Breakthrough Series, patient participation in treatment planning, seclusion, physical harassment, patient satisfaction, involuntary treatment
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Adult, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Female, Hospital Departments, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Social Perception, 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