↓ Skip to main content

Justifications for coercive care in child and adolescent psychiatry, a content analysis of medical documentation in Sweden

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Justifications for coercive care in child and adolescent psychiatry, a content analysis of medical documentation in Sweden
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1310-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veikko Pelto-Piri, Lars Kjellin, Christina Lindvall, Ingemar Engström

Abstract

There has been considerable interest in normative ethics regarding how and when coercive care can be justified. However, only a few empirical studies consider how professionals reason about ethical aspects when assessing the need for coercive care for adults, and even less concerning children and adolescents. The aim of this study was to examine and describe how professionals document their value arguments when considering the need for coercive psychiatric care of young people. All 16 clinics that admitted children or adolescents to coercive care during one year in Sweden were included in the study. These clinics had a total of 155 admissions of 142 patients over one year. Qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach was used to find different forms of justification for coercive care that was documented in the medical records, including Care Certificates. The analysis of medical records revealed two main arguments used to justify coercive care in child and adolescent psychiatry: 1) the protection argument - the patients needed protection, mainly from themselves, and 2) the treatment requirement argument - coercive care was a necessary measure for administering treatment to the patient. Other arguments, namely the caregiver support argument, the clarification argument and the solidarity argument, were used primarily to support the two main arguments. These supportive arguments were mostly used when describing the current situation, not in the explicit argumentation for coercive care. The need for treatment was often only implicitly clarified and the type of care the patient needed was not specified. Few value arguments were used in the decision for coercive care; instead physicians often used their authority to convince others that treatment was necessary. One clinical implication of the study is that decisions about the use of coercive care should have a much stronger emphasis on ethical aspects. There is a need for an ethical legitimacy founded upon explicit ethical reasoning and after communication with the patient and family, which should be documented together with the decision to use coercive care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Other 9 15%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Psychology 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,554,513
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,320
of 8,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,663
of 304,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#78
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.