Cited by 14Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study

Open access
Bainbridge, Emma, Hallahan, Brian, McGuinness, David, Gunning, Patricia, Newell, John, Higgins, Agnes, Murphy, Kathy, McDonald, Colm·2018·BJPsych Open

Abstract

Background: Involuntary admission can be traumatic and is associated with negative attitudes that persist after the episode of illness has abated. Aims: We aimed to prospectively assess satisfaction with care at the points of involuntary admission and symptomatic recovery, and identify their sociodemographic, clinical and service experience predictors. Method: Levels of satisfaction with care, and clinical and sociodemographic variables were obtained from a representative cohort of 263 patients at the point of involuntary admission and from 155 of these patients 3 months after termination of the involuntary admission. Data were analysed with multiple linear regression modelling. Results: Higher baseline awareness of illness (B = 0.19, P < 0.001) and older age (B = 0.05, P = 0.001) were associated with more satisfaction with care at baseline and follow-up. Transition to greater satisfaction with care was associated with improvements in awareness of illness (B = 0.13, P < 0.001) and in symptoms (B = 0.05, P = 0.02), as well as older age (B = 0.04, P = 0.01). Objective coercive experiences were not associated with variation in satisfaction with care. Conclusions: There is wide variation in satisfaction with coercive care. Greater satisfaction with care is positively associated with clinical variables such as increased awareness of illness. Declaration of interest: None.

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 · 10.1192/bjo.2018.65

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Satisfaction was initially lower among involuntary patients.

    “A further study found that while satisfaction was initially lower among involuntary patients, post-discharge satisfaction was similar between groups (115).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Results section (‘Satisfaction with involuntary care’; page not provided) reports that satisfaction among involuntary patients improved significantly from baseline to follow-up. But the study followed an involuntary cohort rather than comparing involuntary and voluntary groups, so it does not establish that involuntary patients initially had lower satisfaction than another group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Post-discharge satisfaction was similar between groups.

    “A further study found that while satisfaction was initially lower among involuntary patients, post-discharge satisfaction was similar between groups (115).”

    From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Results section, ‘Satisfaction with involuntary care’ (page unavailable), reports improved satisfaction between baseline and follow-up among involuntarily admitted patients. The Methods section, ‘Study design’ (page unavailable), describes follow-up of those patients, but our copy does not report a comparison with another patient group at either time point. I searched for voluntary-patient comparisons and similar post-discharge satisfaction between groups. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bainbridge, E., Hallahan, B., McGuinness, D., Gunning, P., Newell, J., Higgins, A., Murphy, K., & McDonald, C.
Affiliations
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Corresponding author
McDonald, Colm
Venue
BJPsych Open
Published
2018-11
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
492-500
ISSN
2056-4724 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901440012
Cited by
14
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Mental Health Commission
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, patient satisfaction, coercive care, involuntary treatment, disease awareness, symptom awareness, age, predictors of satisfaction, psychiatric inpatient 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