Effect of standardized post-coercion review on subjective coercion: Results of a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-coercion review has been increasingly regarded as a useful intervention in psychiatric inpatient setting. However, little is known about its effect on perceived coercion. METHODS: A multicenter, two-armed, randomized controlled trial was conducted, aiming at analyzing the effect of post-coercion review on perceived coercion. People with severe mental disorders, who experienced at least one coercive measure during inpatient treatment, were randomized using Zelen's design to an intervention group receiving standardized post-coercion review, or a control group treated as usual. The MacArthur admission experience scale (AES) and the coercion ladder (CL) were used to assess perceived coercion during inpatient treatment. The coercion experience scale (CES) measured experienced coercion during the coercive intervention. Analyses of covariance were performed to determine group differences. RESULTS: Of 422 randomized participants, n = 109 consented to participate in the trial. A restricted intention-to-treat analysis of all individuals who consented revealed no significant effect of the intervention on perceived coercion. A significant interaction effect between the factors gender and intervention on the AES scores was found. Sensitivity analysis revealed significant effects of the intervention on both AES and CL scores and an interaction effect between intervention and gender, indicating a higher efficacy in women. No effect of the intervention on CES scores was found. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized post-coercion review sessions did not alleviate the subjective perception of coercion in the total sample. However, post hoc analysis revealed a significant effect of the intervention in women. Results indicate the need to further address gender-specific issues related to coercion.

Subjective experience of coercion in psychiatric care: a study comparing the attitudes of patients and healthy volunteers towards coercive methods and their justification.

Under certain conditions, coercive interventions in psychotic patients can help to regain insight and alleviate symptoms, but can also traumatize subjects. This study explored attitudes towards psychiatric coercive interventions in healthy individuals and persons suffering from schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. The impact of personal history of coercive treatment on preferences concerning clinical management of patients unable to consent was investigated. Six case vignettes depicting scenarios of ethical dilemmas and demanding decisions in favour of or against coercive interventions were presented to 60 healthy volunteers and 90 patients. Structured interviews focusing on experienced coercion were performed in conjunction with the Coercion Experience Scale and the Admission Experience Survey. Symptom severity, psychosocial functioning and insight into illness were assessed as influencing variables. Student's t tests compared patients' and controls' judgments, followed by regression analyses to define the predictive value of symptoms and measures of coercion on judgments regarding the total patient sample and patients with experience of fixation. Patients and non-psychiatric controls showed no significant difference in their attitudes towards involuntary admission and forced medication. Conversely, patients more than controls significantly disapproved of mechanical restraint. Subjective experience of coercive interventions played an important role for the justification of treatment against an individual's "natural will". Factors influencing judgments on coercion were overall functioning and personal experience of treatment effectiveness and fairness. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of perceived coercion, in addition to insight into illness, predicted judgments of previously fixated patients. Results underline the importance of the quality of practical implementation and care, if coercive interventions cannot be avoided.