‘When coercion moves into your home’—A qualitative study of patient experiences with outpatient commitment in Norway
Open accessAbstract
The use of coercion on people with mental health problems is a serious intervention, and a reduction in its use is a declared goal in mental healthcare. Yet, many countries have introduced expanded powers of coercion in recent years, including outpatient commitment (OC). However, the evidence of the effectiveness of OC is inconclusive, and little is known about how patients experience OC schemes. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore (i) patients' experiences with OC, and (ii) how routines in care and health services affect patients' everyday living. The data were collected in 2011-2012 and included 11 qualitative in-depth interviews with patients subject to OC. The study used a narrative approach to interviews and a thematic narrative analysis. Participants generally complied with the OC requirements because of the clear and secure framework of OC, and also because they believed that the alternative would be involuntary hospitalisation. No one reported physical force, but coercion was experienced as limitation of freedom of action through excessive control and little patient influence or participation in their own treatment. Factors affecting patients' freedom of action under OC should be taken into account when the imposition of an OC order is considered.
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?
Two studies on forced community treatment (OPC and ACT) found that not being involved in decision-making and knowing that others were making choices on their behalf was particularly distressing and intrusive.
“Similarly, two studies on forced community treatment (OPC and ACT) found that not being involved in decision-making and knowing that others were making choices on their behalf was particularly distressing and intrusive [83,106].”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [106]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Riley, H., Høyer, G., & Lorem, G. F.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
- UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
- Venue
- Health & Social Care in the Community
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2014-04-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 506-514
- ISSN
- 0966-0410 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029657298
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 5.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Health & Social Care in the Community (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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
- outpatient commitment, coercion in mental health care, patient experience, involuntary hospitalisation, freedom of action, patient participation, mental health law
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Commitment of Mentally Ill, Community Mental Health Services, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Norway, Narration, 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