Psychiatric patients’ views on why their involuntary hospitalisation was right or wrong: a qualitative study

Purpose To explore involuntary patients’ retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong. Methods Involuntary patients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis. Results Most of the patients felt...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 2012-07, Vol.47 (7), p.1169-1179
Main Authors: Katsakou, Christina, Rose, Diana, Amos, Tim, Bowers, Len, McCabe, Rosemarie, Oliver, Danielle, Wykes, Til, Priebe, Stefan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Analysis
Attitude
Biological and medical sciences
Coercion
Commitment of Mentally Ill
England
Epidemiology
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Male
Medical research
Medical sciences
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Experimental
Mental Disorders - psychology
Middle Aged
Original Paper
Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Qualitative Research
Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To explore involuntary patients’ retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong. Methods Involuntary patients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis. Results Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation. Conclusions The study illustrates why some patients view their involuntary hospitalisation positively, whereas others believe it was wrong. This knowledge could inform the development of interventions to improve patients’ views and treatment experiences.
ISSN:0933-7954
1433-9285
DOI:10.1007/s00127-011-0427-z