| 1. |
- Giacco, Domenico, et al.
(författare)
-
Caregivers' appraisals of patients' involuntary hospital treatment : European multicentre study
- 2012
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Psychiatry. - : The Royal College of Psychiatrists. - 0007-1250 .- 1472-1465. ; 201:6, s. 486-491
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Mental health policies emphasise that caregivers' views of involuntary psychiatric treatment should be taken into account. However, there is little evidence on how caregivers view such treatment.Aims: To explore caregivers' satisfaction with the involuntary hospital treatment of patients and what factors are associated with caregivers' appraisals of treatment.Method: A multicentre prospective study was carried out in eight European countries. Involuntarily admitted patients and their caregivers rated their appraisal of treatment using the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale 1 month after admission.Results: A total of 336 patients and their caregivers participated. Caregivers' appraisals of treatment were positive (mean of 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10) and moderately correlated with patients' views. More positive caregivers' views were associated with greater patients' symptom improvement.Conclusions: Caregivers' appraisals of involuntary in-patient treatment are rather favourable. Their correlation with patients' symptom improvement may underline their relevance in clinical practice.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kalisova, Lucie, et al.
(författare)
-
Do patient and ward-related characteristics influence the use of coercive measures? : Results from the EUNOMIA international study
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. - : Springer. - 0933-7954 .- 1433-9285. ; 49:10, s. 1619-1629
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study aims to identify whether selected patient and ward-related factors are associated with the use of coercive measures. Data were collected as part of the EUNOMIA international collaborative study on the use of coercive measures in ten European countries.Involuntarily admitted patients (N = 2,027) were divided into two groups. The first group (N = 770) included patients that had been subject to at least one of these coercive measures during hospitalization: restraint, and/or seclusion, and/or forced medication; the other group (N = 1,257) included patients who had not received any coercive measure during hospitalization. To identify predictors of use of coercive measures, both patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and centre-related characteristics were tested in a multivariate logistic regression model, controlled for countries' effect.The frequency of the use of coercive measures varied significantly across countries, being higher in Poland, Italy and Greece. Patients who received coercive measures were more frequently male and with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder (F20-F29). According to the regression model, patients with higher levels of psychotic and hostility symptoms, and of perceived coercion had a higher risk to be coerced at admission. Controlling for countries' effect, the risk of being coerced was higher in Poland. Patients' sociodemographic characteristics and ward-related factors were not identifying as possible predictors because they did not enter the model.The use of coercive measures varied significantly in the participating countries. Clinical factors, such as high levels of psychotic symptoms and high levels of perceived coercion at admission were associated with the use of coercive measures, when controlling for countries' effect. These factors should be taken into consideration by programs aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in psychiatric wards.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mackey, Allison R., et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening : a systematic review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMC Pediatrics. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2431. ; 22:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.METHODS: Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.CONCLUSION: Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nawka, Alexander, et al.
(författare)
-
Gender differences in coerced patients with schizophrenia
- 2013
-
Ingår i: BMC Psychiatry. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-244X. ; 13, s. 257-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Despite the recent increase of research interest in involuntary treatment and the use of coercive measures, gender differences among coerced schizophrenia patients still remain understudied. It is well recognized that there are gender differences both in biological correlates and clinical presentations in schizophrenia, which is one of the most common diagnoses among patients who are treated against their will. The extent to which these differences may result in a difference in the use of coercive measures for men and women during the acute phase of the disease has not been studied.Methods: 291 male and 231 female coerced patients with schizophrenia were included in this study, which utilized data gathered by the EUNOMIA project (European Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry and Harmonization of Best Clinical Practice) and was carried out as a multi-centre prospective cohort study at 13 centers in 12 European countries. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, social functioning and aggressive behavior in patients who received any form of coercive measure (seclusion and/or forced medication and/or physical restraint) during their hospital stay were assessed.Results: When compared to the non-coerced inpatient population, there was no difference in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics across either gender. However coerced female patients did show a worse social functioning than their coerced male counterparts, a finding which contrasts with the non-coerced inpatient population. Moreover, patterns of aggressive behavior were different between men and women, such that women exhibited aggressive behavior more frequently, but men committed severe aggressive acts more frequently. Staff used forced medication in women more frequently and physical restraint and seclusion more frequently with men.Conclusions: Results of this study point towards a higher threshold of aggressive behavior the treatment of women with coercive measures. This may be because less serious aggressive actions trigger the application of coercive measures in men. Moreover coerced women showed diminished social functioning, and more importantly more severe symptoms from the " excitement/hostile" cluster in contrast to coerced men. National and international recommendation on coercive treatment practices should include appropriate consideration of the evidence of gender differences in clinical presentation and aggressive behaviors found in inpatient populations.
|
|
