Cited by 3Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Tvang i psykisk helsevern: En sammenligning av holdninger blant pasienter og ansatte

Open access
Lydersen, Guri Sjøtun, Morken, Marte, Aasland, Olaf, Pedersen, Reidar, Husum, Tonje Lossius·2022·Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening

Abstract

Aim: Few studies have compared attitudes to coercion in both patients and healthcare professionals, and the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS) has not previously been used in Norway. The purpose of the current study was to examine differences in staff and patient attitudes using SACS. Method: The study included 1160 employees and 332 patients. Factor analysis was used to compare SACS’s three-factor model across the two groups. Independent t-tests were used to compare staff and patient attitudes on the three SACS dimensions: coercion as potentially offensive and/or harmful to the patient, coercion as care and safety, and coercion as treatment. Results: We found statistically significant differences between staff and patients’ reported attitudes on two SACS dimensions. Patients reported coercion as more offensive and/or harmful than did with staff (t (495) = 7.96, p <.001). Staff reported coercion as care and safety to a higher degree than did patients (t (444) = -5.91, p <.001). Conclusion: The results suggest the presence of attitudinal differences between patients and staff. One limitation of the study is that SACS has not been validated for use by patients. Generally, the results imply a discrepancy in attitudes that may lead to a weak treatment alliance between staff and patients. Keywords: coercion, mental health care, ethical challenges, SACS, staff-patient alliance

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 · 10.52734/sq5783e6

Cites

37 of 37 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. T Barne-, likestillings-og integreringsdepartementet (2013). Konvensjon om rettighetene til mennesker med nedsatt funksjonsevne (CRPD). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.
  3. IndianJPsychiatry_336_18 · DOI
  4. Stangor, C. (2011). Principles of social psychology -1st International Edition by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry are licensed under a CC BY 4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lydersen, G. S., Morken, M., Aasland, O., Pedersen, R., & Husum, T. L.
Venue
Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening
Published
2022-05-27
Volume
59
Issue
6
Pages
446-453
ISSN
  • 0332-6470 (ISSN-L)
  • 2703-9528
OpenAlex
W4280571561
Cited by
3
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
nb
Open access
Locations
Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening (publishedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
coercion, mental health services, patient attitudes, employee attitudes, treatment alliance, ethical considerations, psychiatric treatment

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