IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v68y2022i8p1764-1773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A mixed methods study examining perceptions by service-users of their involuntary admission in relation to levels of insight

Author

Listed:
  • Siobhan Smyth
  • John McFarland
  • David McGuiness
  • Sarah Summerville
  • Emma Bainbridge
  • Brian Hallahan
  • Agnes Higgins
  • Dympna Casey
  • Kathy Murphy
  • Colm McDonald

Abstract

Background: Poor insight is associated with negative attitudes to involuntary admission and care in qualitative studies. Aims: The current paper aims to examine and compare retrospective qualitative perceptions of service-users in relation to their involuntary admission with their levels of clinical insight, using a mixed methods approach. Methods: Forty two participants were assessed 3 months after the revocation of their involuntary admission. Each provided qualitative data relating to their perceptions of the coercive care process, which was analysed using content analysis, along with a quantitative measurement of insight, the Schedule for the Assessment of Insight-Expanded (SAI-E). Employing a mixed methods design and incorporating NVivo matrix coding queries, the datasets were merged to enable qualitative themes to be identified against the quantitative data. Results: Differences were observed between those with high and low insight in terms of their understanding of the need for treatment, their levels of arousal at the time of admission and how they perceived the compassion of health professionals. Certain negative perceptions of care appeared more universal and were common across those with high and low insight. Conclusion: Some negative perceptions of coercive practices appear linked to inherent elements of psychotic illness such as unawareness of illness. Individuals with higher levels of insight tended to perceive their involuntary admission and receiving a diagnosis as beneficial. Negative views that persist amongst service users with high insight levels can highlight areas for successful service improvement, including increased emphasis on non-pharmacotherapy based supports during the coercive care process.

Suggested Citation

  • Siobhan Smyth & John McFarland & David McGuiness & Sarah Summerville & Emma Bainbridge & Brian Hallahan & Agnes Higgins & Dympna Casey & Kathy Murphy & Colm McDonald, 2022. "A mixed methods study examining perceptions by service-users of their involuntary admission in relation to levels of insight," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 68(8), pages 1764-1773, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:68:y:2022:i:8:p:1764-1773
    DOI: 10.1177/00207640211061983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207640211061983
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00207640211061983?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:socpsy:v:68:y:2022:i:8:p:1764-1773. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.