Prevalence of perceived coercion among psychiatric patients: literature review and meta-regression modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method To assess how common the subjective experience of coercion is in psychiatric care and what affects its prevalence. A review of published data was undertaken to assess prevalence of coercion and potential confounding variables. The heterogeneity of results was studied using meta-regression to quantify the relative impact of four potential explanatory variables. Results The raw prevalence of perceived coercion ranged from 16 to 90%. A quarter of legally detained patients did not feel coerced into psychiatric care, whereas a quarter of voluntary in-patients reported coercion in care. Coercion was more common in studies outside the USA, among patient populations subject to legal detention and populations studied using the MacArthur Perceived Coercion Scale as opposed to other measures. Timing of the interview was not associated with coercion. Clinical implications Coercion in psychiatric care remains highly prevalent but varies widely by study. Consistency in measurement is necessary to allow better comparison between studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".