Multiple Stakeholders’ Perspectives of Involuntary Treatment Orders: A Meta-synthesis of the Qualitative Evidence toward an Exploratory Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involuntary treatment orders (ITOs) represent coercive leverage for treatment adherence against the will of individuals incapable of providing consent. ITOs have failed to demonstrate benefits in quantitative studies, but little attention has been paid the growing body of qualitative evidence on ITOs. The current study is an interpretative meta-synthesis designed to integrate qualitative evidence and enhance our understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives (service users, relatives, professionals, psychiatrists) of ITOs in the context of mental health care. Forty-four studies met the following inclusion criteria, peer-reviewed empirical qualitative studies, and focus on perspectives and experiences of ITOs in a mental health context. Themes resulting from the analysis are: an ITO as leverage to manage compliance and risk; legal concerns; learning to play the game; building a therapeutic relationship in a coercive context; positive and negative impacts of ITOs; family involvement; and discharge. Based on these themes, an exploratory model of ITOs is proposed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".