Cited by 147Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

A Phenomenological Account of Users’ Experiences of Assertive Community Treatment

Watts, Jay, Priebe, Stefan·2002·Bioethics

Abstract

Assertive community treatment (ACT) is a widely propagated team approach to community mental health care that ‘assertively’ engages a subgroup of individuals with severe mental illness who continuously disengage from mental health services. It involves a number of interested parties – including clients, carers, clinicians and managers. Each operates according to perceived ethical principles related to their values, mores and principles. ACT condenses a dilemma that is common in psychiatry. ACT proffers social control whilst simultaneously holding therapeutic aspiration. The clients’ perspective of this dilemma was studied in interviews with 12 clients using the ‘grounded theory’ approach. Results suggest that clients’ disengagement is as much a historical and cultural phenomenon as a result of lack of insight. Many clients had experienced rejection of early help–seeking behaviour and all had been subject to coercive interventions. These coercive interventions were experienced as an attack on identity. All felt that their voice had not been listened to in previous interactions with psychiatric services. Consequentially the clients had an increased level of arousal around issues of power, which needs to be incorporated when examining the ethics of community psychiatry. Traditional notions of the difference between persuasion and coercion – for example – may need to be adapted for this client group. Results are compared with the provider perspective. We conclude that the perspectives differ on two key dimensions. Such an empirical approach to examining psychiatric ethics may ensure that we incorporate the subjectivities of various interested parties in the clinical decision–making process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-8519.00301

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watts, J., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
Bioethics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
439-454
ISSN
  • 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8519
OpenAlex
W1986187389
Cited by
147
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
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 › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
assertive community treatment, severe mental illness, customer experience, coercion in mental health care, psychiatric ethics, early help-seeking, voice of the customer, identity, community mental health services
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Community Mental Health Services, Female, Humans, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Compliance, Professional-Patient Relations, Self Concept, Case Management, Qualitative Research

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