Reducing coercion in mental healthcare

Author:

Sashidharan S. P.,Mezzina Roberto,Puras Dainius

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo examine the extent and nature of coercive practices in mental healthcare and to consider the ethical, human rights challenges facing the current clinical practices in this area. We consider the epidemiology of coercion in mental health and appraise the efficacy of attempts to reduce coercion and make specific recommendations for making mental healthcare less coercive and more consensual.MethodsWe identified references through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to May 2018. Searches were carried out using the terms mental health (admission or detain* or detention or coercion) and treatment (forcible or involuntary or seclusion or restraint). Articles published during this period were further identified through searches in the authors' personal files and Google Scholar. Articles resulting from searches and relevant references cited in those articles were reviewed. Articles and reviews of non-psychiatric population, children under 16 years, and those pertaining exclusively to people with dementia were excluded.ResultsCoercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare. There is very little research in this area and the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research as well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem. Examples of good practice in this area are limited and there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes. Based on the review, we make specific recommendations to reduce coercive care. Our contention is that this will require more than legislative tinkering and will necessitate a fundamental change in the culture of psychiatry. In particular, we must ensure that clinical practice never compromises people's human rights. It is ethically, clinically and legally necessary to address the problem of coercion and make mental healthcare more consensual.ConclusionAll forms of coercive practices are inconsistent with human rights-based mental healthcare. This is global challenge that requires urgent action.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Epidemiology

Reference83 articles.

1. World Health Organization (2018) Mental health, human rights and standards of care [cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/mental-health,-human-rights-and-standards-of-care-2018.

2. World Health Organization (2014) Mental Health Legislation worldwide: WHO Mental Health Atlas. https://www.Mindbank.Info/Item/5648.

3. World Health Organization (2013) The European Mental Health Action Plan 2013 −2020. WHO, Copenhagen. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/european-mental-health-action-plan-20132020-the.

4. World Health Organization (2010) A situation analysis of mental health in Somalia. Available at http://applications.emro.who.int/dsaf/EMROPUB_2010_EN_736.pdf.

5. Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3