Cited by 15Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealth, Medicine and Society

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment—A Multiperspective Qualitative Study

Open access
Jaeger, Susanne, Hüther, Franziska, Steinert, Tilman·2019·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: From June 2012 to February 2013 two decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany restricted the so far common practices of using involuntary medication treatment in inpatients who were involuntarily hospitalized. Up to then, involuntary medication was justified by a judge’s decision on involuntary hospital stay and could be applied according to clinical judgment even against the declared will of a patient in those cases. Since then, all domestic laws related to involuntary treatment had to be revised. In an interim time of several months, involuntary medication was only allowed in case of emergency. We were interested in how these limitations affected the experiences of patients, their relatives, and the clinical professionals during that time Methods: 32 interviews were analyzed qualitatively using a Grounded Theory Methodology framework. Results: As a result of the restrictions to involuntary medical treatment special efforts by nursing and medical staff and relatives were required in terms of de-escalation, ward management, promotion of trust and treatment commitment, and coping with the idiosyncrasy and the obvious lack of insight in patients. The family carers were quite concerned about their ill family member and wanted to protect him or her, but at the same time they often welcomed the use of coercion if the patient seemed to lack insight into the condition. Most of the interviewed patients did not perceive their new freedom to refuse medication as such but rather complained about the general limitations they were subjected during involuntary hospitalization. While patients and family members assessed the refusal of medication from a biographical perspective, the mental health care professionals’ focus was on the patients’ symptoms and they understood the situation from a professional perspective. It was obvious that in any of the four perspectives the problem of feeling restricted was crucial and that all groups strived to gain back their freedom of action. Conclusion: In order to prevent compulsion and its negative consequences in inpatient treatment it is indispensable to be aware of the diverging perspectives and to elaborate cooperative and client-centered treatment structures.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00295

Cites

39 of 39 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?

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

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Hüther FTC Jaeger S Steinert T Behandlungsverweigerung, Patientenautonomie und Zwangsmedikation [Dissertation]. Köln: Psychiatrie Verlag; Psychiatrie Verlag GmbH (2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jaeger, S., Hüther, F., & Steinert, T.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Jaeger, Susanne
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
10
Pages
295-295
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944709110
Cited by
15
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
involuntary medication, medication refusal, involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, Federal Constitutional Court decision, coercion in mental health care, family caregivers, patient perspectives, mental health professionals, de-escalation, freedom of action

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