Cited by 46Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

‘When coercion moves into your home’—A qualitative study of patient experiences with outpatient commitment in Norway

Open access
Riley, Henriette, Høyer, Georg, Lorem, Geir F.·2014·Health & Social Care in the Community

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/hsc.12107

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?

  • 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].”

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
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
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