Abstract
Results
Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common
experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who
believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive
views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity
to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when
acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed
through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a
permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that
hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive
community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation.
experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who
believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive
views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity
to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when
acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed
through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a
permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that
hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive
community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original Paper
- Pages 1-11
- DOI 10.1007/s00127-011-0427-z
- Authors
- Christina Katsakou, Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, Cherry Tree Way, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP UK
- Diana Rose, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, Box P034, London, SE5 8AF UK
- Tim Amos, Academic Unit of Psychiatry, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol, BS6 6JL UK
- Len Bowers, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, Box P034, London, SE5 8AF UK
- Rosemarie McCabe, Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, Cherry Tree Way, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP UK
- Danielle Oliver, Lambeth Primary Care Trust, 1 Lower Marsh, Waterloo, London, SE1 7NT UK
- Til Wykes, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, Box P034, London, SE5 8AF UK
- Stefan Priebe, Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, Cherry Tree Way, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP UK
- Journal Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
- Online ISSN 1433-9285
- Print ISSN 0933-7954