Cited by 7Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesSchizophrenia research and treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coercion: point, perception, process

Open access
Castille, Dorothy, Link, Bruce·2007·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

The use of coercion in the treatment of persons with serious mental illness is a long debated strategy to gain adherence to treatment for persons believed to be cognitively impaired by their illness. This article examines the psychometric properties of a scale developed to measure perception of coercion. Using a psychometrically sound scale found to be both reliable and valid in a specific sample of men and women from New York State, we found no difference in perception of coercion between those court-ordered to remain in treatment following hospital discharge and those persons receiving outpatient treatment without a court order. Therefore, to understand why, given the objective difference in the use of coercion, there was no difference in the subjective perception of coercion, we conducted 20 open-ended interviews with 11 persons without court orders and 9 persons with court orders. We found that where a collaborative relationship was established between the case manager, assigned to the patient with the court order to coordinate post-hospitalization treatment services, and the patient, it was much less likely that the patient perceived him/herself as coerced or forced to take treatment. Conversely, persons without advocates felt themselves to be coerced into treatment when there was no court order to insure treatment adherence. Since perception of coercion significantly influences adherence to treatment, it is vital to identify strategies to reduce perceived coercion for all who receive treatment for serious mental illness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-244x-7-s1-s86

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Castille, D., & Link, B.
Affiliations
New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Castille, Dorothy
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2007-12
Volume
7
Issue
S1
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995945830
Cited by
7
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
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 › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
coercion, severe mental illness, medication adherence, court-ordered treatment, post-hospital care, case management, patient advocates, psychometric scale, patient-provider relationship, outpatient care

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