The therapeutic relationship in the context of involuntary treatment orders: The perspective of nurses and patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Involuntary treatment orders are increasingly being used around the world to allow the treatment of individuals living with a mental illness deemed incapable of giving consent and who are actively refusing treatment. The use of involuntary treatment orders can impact the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship, which is essential to offer quality care and promote recovery. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Nurses and patients do not agree on the possibility to develop a therapeutic relationship, with nurses believing they can build a bond with the patients despite the challenges imposed by the involuntary treatment order, and patients rejecting this possibility. Nurses caring for patients on involuntary treatment orders feel obligated to apply the conditions of this measure, even if it damages the relationship with their patients. This difficult aspect of their work leads them to question their role in relation to the management of involuntary treatment orders. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Nurses need to be aware of the reasons why patients on involuntary treatment orders do not believe in the possibility of building a therapeutic relationship. Nurses need to reflect on and express their concerns about the damaging effects that managing involuntary treatment orders conditions can have on the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship. ABSTRACT: Introduction Involuntary treatment orders (ITO) can impact the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship (TR) negatively. Despite the increasing use of ITOs around the world, few studies have explored their influence on the TR from the perspectives of nurses and patients. Aim To describe the TR in the context of ITOs as reported by nurses and individuals living with a mental illness. Method Secondary data analysis of qualitative interviews with nurses (n = 9) and patients (n = 6) was performed using content analysis. Results Participants described the TR as fundamentally embedded in a power imbalance amplified by the ITO, which was discussed through the conflicting roles of nurses, the legal constraints imposed on patients and nurses, the complex relation between the ITO and the TR, and the influence of mental healthcare settings' context. Discussion Nurses and patients' views were opposed, questioning the authenticity of the relationship. Implications for Practice Nurses should be aware of the patients' lack of faith in the TR to ensure that they are sensitive to patients' behaviours that may falsely suggest that a relationship is established. Further studies should explore ways to alleviate the burden of the management of ITOs on nurses and allow for a trusting relationship to be build.
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) | 0.000 | 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".