Association between perceived coercion and perceived level of information in involuntarily admitted patients: Results from a multicenter observational study in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Involuntary admissions (IA) to psychiatric hospitals are controversial because they interfere with people's autonomy. In some situations, however, they appear to be unavoidable. Interestingly, not all patients perceive the same degree of coercion during IA. The aim of this study was to assess whether the level of knowledge about one's own IA is associated with perceived coercion. METHODS: This multicenter observational study was conducted on n = 224 involuntarily admitted patients. Interviews were conducted at five study centers from April 2021 to November 2021. The Macarthur Admission Experience Survey was administered to assess perceived coercion. Knowledge of involuntary admission, perceptions of information received, and attitudes towards legal aspects of involuntary admission were also assessed. RESULTS: We found that higher levels of knowledge about IA were negatively associated with perceived coercion at admission. Perceived coercion did not differ between study sites. Only half of the patients felt well informed about their IA, and about a quarter found the information they received difficult to understand. DISCUSSION: Legislation in Switzerland requires that patients with IA be informed about the procedure. Strategies to improve patients' understanding of the information given to them about IA might be helpful to reduce perceived coercion, which is known to be associated with negative attitudes towards psychiatry, a disturbed therapeutic relationship, avoidance of psychiatry, and the risk of further coercion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".