Outcomes of involuntary hospital admission – a review
Abstract
Introduction: This paper reviews studies on outcomes of involuntary hospital admissions in general adult psychiatry, and predictors of outcomes. Method: Studies assessing observer‐rated clinical change and self‐rated outcomes were identified. Relevant databases were searched and authors were contacted. Studies were classified according to quality criteria. Results: Eighteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most involuntarily admitted patients show substantial clinical improvement over time. Retrospectively, between 33% and 81% of patients regard the admission as justified and/or the treatment as beneficial. Data on predictors of outcomes is limited and inconsistent. Patients with more marked clinical improvement tend to have more positive retrospective judgements. Conclusion: A substantial number of involuntary patients do retrospectively not feel that their admission was justified and beneficial. At least for this group, new approaches might have to be considered. Larger studies are required to identify predictors on which patients are likely to fall into this group.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 200
- Authors
- Katsakou, C., & Priebe, S.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Priebe, S.
- ORCID
- Priebe, S.
- Venue
- Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-05-12
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 232-241
- ISSN
- 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0447
- OpenAlex
- W2157283901
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 0.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (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 › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- involuntary admission, psychiatric inpatient treatment, treatment outcomes, clinical improvement, patient satisfaction, predictors of treatment outcome, general adult psychiatry
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Commitment of Mentally Ill, Hospitalization, Humans, Patient Admission, Surveys and Questionnaires, Databases as Topic
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