CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Ethics in Clinical ResearchHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Coercion or collaboration? Nurses doing research with people who have severe mental health problems.

DAVIES, B. R.·2005·Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00808.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nurses should address the concerns of service users in research and engage in collaborative work with them. Doing this presents ethical dilemmas, not least around the issues of assessing capacity and informed consent to participation in research. The view that judgement regarding the capacity to consent is solely the responsibility of a consultant psychiatrist is challenged as inadequate. The concept of 'moral discourse' (Pike 1991) is used to understand the process by which the assessment of capacity may be carried out. This is illustrated by the application of the concept in a qualitative research study carried out to explore what makes mental health services accessible to women with children. The role of the mental health nurse entails surveillance and the development of expertise in negotiating compliance with treatment programmes. The paper outlines the measures taken to ensure that service users felt empowered, rather than coerced, to participate in this study. While Community Mental Health Team workers were engaged in 'moral discourse' in respect of participation by service users in the study, there were difficulties in engaging General Practitioners. However, there was evidence that women themselves felt empowered both to express interest in participating and to withdraw if they so wished.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00808.x

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Implementing codesign in psychiatric research settings can be challenging due to significant time and cost and ethical challenges with severely burdened and highly vulnerable patient groups.

    “Nevertheless, the implementation of codesign in psychiatric research settings can be challenging due to the significant time and cost involved (48), as well as the ethical challenges that arise when conducting qualitative research with severely burdened and highly vulnerable patient groups (49, 50).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DAVIES, B. R.
Affiliations
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
Corresponding author
DAVIES, B. R.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
106-111
ISSN
  • 1351-0126 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2850
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00808.x
OpenAlex
W2024521998
Cited by
12
References
33
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 17 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
research ethics, mental health service users, capacity assessment, informed consent, moral discourse, coercion, empowerment, women with children, psychiatric nursing, community mental health teams, general practitioners, medication adherence, service user involvement
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Coercion, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Informed Consent, Nurse-Patient Relations, Psychiatric Nursing, Severity of Illness Index, Nursing Research, Researcher-Subject Relations

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