Cited by 60Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesPatient Dignity and Privacy

Patients’ experience of humiliation in the admission process to acute psychiatric wards

Svindseth, Marit F., Dahl, Alv A., Hatling, Trond·2007·Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

The objective of the study was to investigate the experiences of humiliations by patients in the admission process to acute psychiatric wards. One-hundred-and-two patients were interviewed within 48 h after hospitalization about their experiences of the admission process. The structured Admission Experience Survey questionnaire was used to identify negative events of the admission process. Perceived humiliation was defined by a cut-off on the self-reported Cantrill's Ladder Scale. Six qualitative depth interviews of patients with high and low humiliation scores were performed in order to relate interview information on humiliation experiences to the self-report. Negative events during the admission process were significantly more common among patients with involuntary admission, but were also observed among those voluntary admitted. Humiliation in connection with negative events during the admission process was reported by 48 patients, 24 involuntary and 24 voluntary admitted. In univariate analyses, humiliation was significantly associated with events where the patients were exposed to verbal or physical force, as well as with the conviction that "the admission was not right". In multivariate analyses, the latter conviction was the only significant one, although "use of physical force" also showed a trend (P=0.06). Negative events are common among the routines, procedures, and situations of the admission process to acute psychiatric wards. Some of them can hopefully be modified such as the use of verbal and physical force. In contrast, the conviction that "the admission was not right", which showed the strongest association with humiliation, seems less modifiable in the admission process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08039480601129382

Cites

27 of 27 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Svindseth, M. F., Dahl, A. A., & Hatling, T.
Affiliations
  • Ålesund Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • SINTEF (NO)
Corresponding author
Svindseth, Marit F.
Venue
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2007-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
47-53
ISSN
  • 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-9488
  • 1502-4725
OpenAlex
W2138426677
Cited by
60
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.18
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Dignity and Privacy
Keywords
humiliation, acute psychiatric wards, involuntary admission, voluntary admission, patient experience, physical force
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Affect, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Patient Admission, Patients, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychiatric Department, Hospital

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