IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i3p2081-d1045003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

General and Case-Specific Approval of Coercion in Psychiatry in the Public Opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Sahar Steiger

    (University Psychiatric Clinics Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Str. 27, CH-4012 Basel, Switzerland
    Division of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstr. 60/62, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Julian Moeller

    (University Psychiatric Clinics Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Str. 27, CH-4012 Basel, Switzerland
    Division of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstr. 60/62, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Julia F. Sowislo

    (University Psychiatric Clinics Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Str. 27, CH-4012 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Roselind Lieb

    (Division of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstr. 60/62, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Undine E. Lang

    (University Psychiatric Clinics Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Str. 27, CH-4012 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Christian G. Huber

    (University Psychiatric Clinics Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Str. 27, CH-4012 Basel, Switzerland)

Abstract

Background: Psychiatric patients are subjected to considerable stigmatization, in particular, because they are considered aggressive, uncontrollable, and dangerous. This stigmatization might influence the approval of coercive measures in psychiatry by the public and healthcare professionals and might have an influence on the clinical practice of coercive measures. We examined whether the general approval of coercive measures for psychiatric patients with dangerous behaviors differs from case-specific approval. Method: We conducted a representative survey of the general population ( n = 2207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. In total, 1107 participants assessed a case vignette depicting a fictitious character with a mental illness and indicated whether they would accept coercive measures (involuntary hospitalization, involuntary medication, and seclusion) for the person in the vignette. It was explicitly stated that within the last month, the fictitious character displayed no dangerous behavior (Vignette ND) or dangerous behavior (Vignette D). Another 1100 participants were asked whether they would approve coercive measures (involuntary hospitalization, involuntary medication, and seclusion) for psychiatric patients with dangerous behavior in general (General D), i.e., without having received or referring to a specific case vignette. Findings: The logistic regression model containing all variables explained 45% of the variance in approval of any type of coercive measures. Assessment of case vignettes without dangerous behavior (Vignette ND) was associated with significantly reduced approval of coercive measures compared to assessment of a case vignette with dangerousness (Vignette D), while approval for coercive measures in a person with mental health disorder with dangerous behavior in general (General D) was significantly higher than for the case vignette with dangerousness. Conclusions: The general approval of coercive measures for people with mental disorders seems to differ depending on if the respondents are asked to give a general assessment or to examine a specific and detailed clinical case vignette, indicating an increased role of stigmatization when asking about generalized assessments. This may contribute to diverging findings on the acceptance of coercive measures in the literature and should be considered when designing future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sahar Steiger & Julian Moeller & Julia F. Sowislo & Roselind Lieb & Undine E. Lang & Christian G. Huber, 2023. "General and Case-Specific Approval of Coercion in Psychiatry in the Public Opinion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2081-:d:1045003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2081/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2081/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2081-:d:1045003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.