Cited by 8Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

The Impact of Coercion on Treatment Outcome: One-Year Follow-up Survey

Seo, Mi Kyung, Kim, Seung Hyun, Rhee, MinKyu·2013·The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine

Abstract

Objective: This study examined whether coercive measures or perceived coercion experienced by mentally disabled patients in the hospitalization process could be justified under paternalism. To find out whether coercion can be justified by paternalism, a year of follow-up research was conducted to examine the impact of coercive measures and perceived coercion experienced during hospitalization on the patients' therapeutic benefit. Methods: A 6-month period and a 1-year period of follow-up research was conducted with 266 patients to assess whether the coercion they experienced during hospitalization (coercive measures and perceived coercion) had an effect on changing the patients' mental symptoms and insight. Results: The results showed a decrease in both mental symptoms and insight over time. However, it was found that neither coercive measures nor perceived coercion had a significant effect on the change of mental symptoms and that, thus, coercion had little contribution to the declining of symptoms. Coercive measures had no effect on the change of insight but perceived coercion was shown to have a positive effect on a change in insight. Patient insight was shown to improve with increased perceived coercion. Conclusions: Paternalism provides a partial explanation to serve as a basis for justifying perceived coercion. Limitations and suggestions for further study are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2190/pm.45.3.g

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Some studies found no difference in the clinical effects of involuntary admission.

    “In general, these studies found either no difference in the clinical effects of involuntary admission (27,40–45) or greater improvements in clinical symptoms and functioning than for voluntary patients (46,47).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seo, M. K., Kim, S. H., & Rhee, M.
Affiliations
  • Gyeongsang National University (KR)
  • Korea University (KR)
Corresponding author
Rhee, MinKyu
Venue
The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine
Published
2013-04
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
279-298
ISSN
  • 0033-278X (ISSN-L)
  • 0091-2174
  • 1541-3527
OpenAlex
W2005426954
Cited by
8
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
coercion, perceived coercion, coercive measures, paternalism, mental illness, psychiatric hospitalization, treatment outcomes, insight, psychiatric symptoms, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Surveys, Hospitalization, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Social Perception, Time Factors, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome, Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, Paternalism

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