Coerced Hospital Admission and Symptom Change—A Prospective Observational Multi-Centre Study
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Coerced admission to psychiatric hospitals, defined by legal status or patient's subjective experience, is common. Evidence on clinical outcomes however is limited. This study aimed to assess symptom change over a three month period following coerced admission and identify patient characteristics associated with outcomes. METHOD: At study sites in 11 European countries consecutive legally involuntary patients and patients with a legally voluntary admission who however felt coerced, were recruited and assessed by independent researchers within the first week after admission. Symptoms were assessed on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Patients were re-assessed after one and three months. RESULTS: The total sample consisted of 2326 legally coerced patients and 764 patients with a legally voluntary admission who felt coerced. Symptom levels significantly improved over time. In a multivariable analysis, higher baseline symptoms, being unemployed, living alone, repeated hospitalisation, being legally a voluntary patient but feeling coerced, and being initially less satisfied with treatment were all associated with less symptom improvement after one month and, other than initial treatment satisfaction, also after three months. The diagnostic group was not linked with outcomes. DISCUSSION: On average patients show significant but limited symptom improvements after coerced hospital admission, possibly reflecting the severity of the underlying illnesses. Social factors, but not the psychiatric diagnosis, appear important predictors of outcomes. Legally voluntary patients who feel coerced may have a poorer prognosis than legally involuntary patients and deserve attention in research and clinical practice.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Involuntary admission may be associated with difficulties establishing clinical rapport and patient insight into illness.
“However, involuntary admission may be associated with difficulties establishing clinical rapport and patient insight into illness (12,49,50).”
From The benefits and harms of inpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [49]
The Introduction and Discussion > Implications discuss perceived coercion and symptom outcomes, but neither addresses difficulty establishing clinical rapport or patient insight into illness. Searches for those concepts and the full claim found no passage supporting the attributed association. (LLM, conf=0.74)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 82
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [15]Kallert TW Torres-González F 2006 Legislation on coercive mental health care in Europe. Legal documents and comparative assessment of twelve European countries Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt/M., New York, Oxford, Wien Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften
- Authors
- Kallert, T. W., Katsakou, C., Adamowski, T., Dembinskas, A., Fiorillo, A., Kjellin, L., Mastrogianni, A., Nawka, P., Onchev, G., Raboch, J., Schützwohl, M., Solomon, Z., Torres-González, F., Bremner, S., & Priebe, S.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Wroclaw Medical University (PL)
- Vilnius University (LT)
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
- Štefan Kukura Hospital in Michalovce (SK)
- Medical University of Sofia (BG)
- Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Priebe, Stefan
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-11-30
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e28191
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3227658
- OpenAlex
- W1970050239
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European 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 psychiatric admission, symptom change, psychiatric inpatients, treatment satisfaction, social factors, unemployment, living alone, prognosis, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Coercion, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Patient Admission, Prospective Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models, Patient Selection
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