ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Being subjected to or witnessing coercive measures in mental health services can have a negative impact on service users, carers and professionals, as they most often are experienced as dehumanising and traumatic. Coercion should be avoided, but when it does happen, it is important to understand how the experience can be processed so that its consequences are managed. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-ethnography was used to synthesise findings from qualitative studies that examined service users', staff's and relatives' experiences of recovery from being exposed to coercive measures in mental health care settings. We identified, extracted and synthesised, across 23 studies, the processes and factors that were interpreted as significant to process the experience. RESULTS: Recovery from coercion is dependent on a complex set of conditions that support a sense of dignity and respect, a feeling of safety and empowerment. Being in a facilitating environment, receiving appropriate information and having consistent reciprocal communication with staff are the means through which these conditions can be achieved. People employ strategies to achieve recovery, both during and after coercion, to minimise its impact and process the experience. CONCLUSIONS: The findings point to the importance of mental health care settings offering recovery-oriented environments and mental health professionals employing recovery-oriented practices, that would empower service users to develop strategies for managing their mental distress as well as their experiences in mental health care in a way that minimises traumatisation and fosters recovery.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Coercion is a controversial issue in mental health care. Recent research highlights that coercion is a relational phenomenon, although, it remains unclear how this intersubjective context should be understood. The aim of this study is to propose an interactional model of the relational aspects of coercion that enhances theoretical understanding, based on the assumptions of patients. METHOD: The research question was studied by means of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Twelve people who had psychiatric hospitalisations were interviewed in-depth, using broad open questions relating to the experience of coercion and power in psychiatry. Data were collected in 2016 and 2017 in Belgium. RESULTS: Across participants' accounts we observed a specific structure. The relational quality of coercion seemed to be embedded within a process where individuals were one-sidedly approached as a 'sick patient', which led to profound segregation between staff and patients. This segregation caused a form of de-subjectivation: participants felt that important aspects of their subjectivity were neglected and they experienced professionals as de-subjectivated. They felt as if power resides within the (non-) interactions between patients and mental health workers. De-subjectivation arose and was enlarged within relations by broken contact, by silence in coercive acts, and by the necessity of patients to conform to the professionals' treatment regime. Helpful encounters that were not deemed coercive were those where patients and staff were individuated, which altered their relation. CONCLUSIONS: To understand the relational quality of coercion, interventions like seclusion and house rules should also be understood within this structure of de-subjectivation. We need to tackle this dynamic if we want to reduce coercion in psychiatric care.
