Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Compulsory treatment is a common, yet controversial, practice in psychiatry. This paper reviews recent studies on the use of compulsory measures in hospital, the community and special populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Researchers continue to examine the rates and patterns of involuntary hospitalization. However, they have extended their investigations to care in the community, acknowledging it as the primary locus of treatment for most patients. Research shows that the implementation of community mental health legislation presents complex clinical and practical issues that require further investigation. Recognition that compulsory treatment is an objective event which is subjectively experienced by patients, families and clinicians has led to research investigating stakeholder views. The therapeutic relationship has been found to be an important modifier of the experience of compulsory treatment. Recent studies have also focused on specific coercive practices, such as forced medication and seclusion, and the use of these in patient subgroups, including those with eating disorders and adolescents. The debate about whether compulsory treatment is ethical continues in the literature. SUMMARY: Compulsory treatment in psychiatry remains an ethically and clinically contentious issue. As ethical concerns are generally countered by the argument that compulsory measures can lead to beneficial clinical outcomes, further empirical investigation in this area is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".