Tvang i psykisk helsevern: En sammenligning av holdninger blant ansatte og pasienter

Author:

Lydersen Guri Sjøtun,Morken Marte,Aasland Olaf,Pedersen Reidar,Husum Tonje Lossius

Abstract

Aim: Few studies have compared attitudes to coercion in both patients and healthcare professionals, and the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS) has not previously been used in Norway. The purpose of the current study was to examine differences in staff and patient attitudes using SACS. Method: The study included 1160 employees and 332 patients. Factor analysis was used to compare SACS's three-factor model across the two groups. Independent t-tests were used to compare staff and patient attitudes on the three SACS dimensions: coercion as potentially offensive and/or harmful to the patient, coercion as care and safety, and coercion as treatment. Results: We found statistically significant differences between staff and patients' reported attitudes on two SACS dimensions. Patients reported coercion as more offensive and/or harmful than did with staff (t (495) = 7.96, p <.001). Staff reported coercion as care and safety to a higher degree than did patients (t (444) = -5.91, p <.001). Conclusion: The results suggest the presence of attitudinal differences between patients and staff. One limitation of the study is that SACS has not been validated for use by patients. Generally, the results imply a discrepancy in attitudes that may lead to a weak treatment alliance between staff and patients. Keywords: coercion, mental health care, ethical challenges, SACS, staff-patient alliance.

Publisher

Norsk psykologforening

Reference48 articles.

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

2. Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.

3. Bindman, J., Tighe, J., Thornicroft, G. & Leese, M. (2002). Poverty, poor services, and compulsory psychiatric admission in England. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(7), 341-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-002-0558-3

4. Bjerkan, A. M., Pedersen, P. B. & Lilleeng, S. (2009). Brukerundersøkelse blant døgnpasienter i psykisk helsevern for voksne 2003 og 2007. https://www.tvangsforskning.no/filarkiv/File/Dokumenter/Rapport_A11409_Brukerundersoekelse_blant_doegnpasienter.pdf

5. Bremnes, R. (2019). Tvang i psykisk helsevern (rapport IS-2812). Helsedirektoratet. https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/rapporter/kontroll-av-tvangsbruk-i-psykisk-helsevern

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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