Upload
anna-hamilton
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Why is coercion research so difficult?
George SzmuklerInstitute of Psychiatry, King’s College London
Oslo, May 2013
Institute of Psychiatry at The Maudsley
Key problems
When asking a meaningful question Definitions of ‘coercion’ & its measurement The problems of context Ethical issues
Meaningful questions
How often are coercive measures used? What factors are associated with the use of
coercive measures? What are the short- and long-term effects on
patients; on staff; on others? How can we reduce the use of such
measures?
and we especially value generalisable findings
Definition of ‘coercion’
Philosophical analysis (e.g. Feinberg, Wertheimer, Rhodes)
‘Objective’ (important for law and ethics; interventions at various levels)
‘Subjective’ (important for service delivery, interventions, engaging service users in services or research)
5
Spectrum of treatment pressures
1. Persuasion2. Interpersonal leverage3. Inducements4. Threats5. Compulsory treatment
6
‘Coercion’
Wertheimer (1987): Threats coerce, offers generally do not
The crux of the distinction between threats and offers is that A makes a threat when B will be worse off than in some relevant base-line position if B does not accept A’s proposal; but A makes an offer when B will be no worse off than in some relevant base-line position if B does not accept A’s proposal.
Fixing the baseline ‘Moral baseline’ - threat makes an ‘ought’ conditional
7
Problems of inducements
Constraints on inducements setting a ‘base-line’ for mental health services –
What are the entitlements? Paradox: the greater the range of services or help offered, the
greater the scope for threats (or coercion) questions of ‘fairness’ –
why should some be offered inducements and others not? Highly problematic inducements
Financial incentives to take treatment
Research definition of ‘coercion’
Which instrument? Purpose
What assumptions or theories underlie the measure What meaning is being adopted
Have we done enough qualitative research to create meaningful quantitative measures?
Research definition of ‘coercion’ Effect of context on use of instruments
The general ‘coercive backdrop’ (including the legal and ‘rights’ context)
e.g. 47% of informal inpatients reported high coercion (Sheehan & Burns, 2011)
Types of coercion that are favoured (e.g. forms of restraint, medication) may affect nature or experience of coercion
E.g. Steinert & Lepping vignette study, 2009)
Culture; how mental disorder is understood; language of coercion Possible variations in what is understood as coercive; nuances
Assessed where; when; by whom As inpatient or community; who interviewed by; independence;
when; any perceived consequences Researching the E Hughes’ ‘dirty work’
Disciplinary perspectives Whose questions? Whose analysis? Including role of service users
Context: International variation
Variation Laws (medical discretion v legal control; appeals, advocacy; legal
representation, etc)
Regulation (e.g. CPA; risk emphasis)
Services (e.g. accessibility; bed numbers; staffing levels; training; community services; alternatives to admission)
Social and cultural attitudes (stigma; discrimination; ‘failure of care in the community’)
Language relevant to ‘coercion’ (e.g. interpretation of questionnaire)
11
‘OBJECTIVE COERCION’Involuntary admissions in EU countries 1999 - 2000
International variation
Salize & Dressing (2004)
International variation
Bak & Aggernaes, 2011
International variation
Bak & Aggernaes, 2011
International variation
International variation
Admission Experience Survey
Perceived Coercion Scale1. I felt free to do what I wanted about coming into the hospital.4. I chose to come into the hospital.7. It was my idea to come into the hospital.13. I had a lot of control over whether I went into the hospital.14. I had more influence than anyone else on whether I came into the hospital. Negative Pressures Scale2. People tried to force me to come into the hospital.6. Someone threatened me to get me to come into the hospital.8. Someone physically tried to make me come into the hospital.9. I was threatened with sectioning.10. They said they would make me come into the hospital.11. No one tried to force me to come into the hospital. Procedural Justice/Voice Scale3. I had enough of a chance to say whether I wanted to come into the hospital.5. I got to say what I wanted about coming into the hospital.12. My opinion about coming into the hospital didn't matter.
Context: National variation1. Time
Services change Community services; reduction in beds Risk emphasis Effect of service reorganisation
Changes in service structure; teams; staff Effect on research capacity at times of change: e.g. people are more
worried about their jobs than facilitating research
Laws change Introduction of ‘involuntary outpatient treatment’
Culture changes Changes in society – drug use; crime trends; unemployment Growth of ‘patient voice’
Compulsory admissions to NHS facilities, including high security hospitals and private mental nursing homes
1987/88-2009/10Total orders, changes from informal to section, and court orders
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
s2 191 234 297
s3 232 243 240
TOTAL 719 813 925
Quarter 3 MHA statistics South London & Maudsley NHS foundation Trust
Health and Social Care Information Centre, KP90
Why CTOs increase
Broadening of criteria for compulsion huge scope for discretion ‘lobster-pot’ phenomenon
Risk averse society Loss of ‘ceiling effect’ Less resources
will lead to changing relationships between patients and clinicians
24
Kjellin et al, Int J Law Psychiatry 2008
Compulsory treatment in Sweden 1979 - 2002
25
Mental Health Review Board (Victoria, Australia): statistics
1996/1997 1999/2000 2006/2007 % change
Cases listed 10,522 13,196 18,719 1996 to 2006 + 78%
1999 to 2006 + 42%
Mental Health Review Board of Victoria Annual Report - 2007-2008
Context: National variation
2. Place Large variation despite similar service
configurations and legal framework ‘Custom and convention’ Influential local treatment ‘opinion formers’ (such as
a local university professor)
Variation in use of coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals B. Lay et al, 2011
29
Kjellin et al, Int J Law Psychiatry 2008
Compulsory treatment in Sweden 2001 - 2002Intra-national variation
Husum et al, 2010
Norway
Janssen et al, 2013
Netherlands29 wards
Factors studied:1 patient characteristics2 ward characteristics (mostly unspecified)
‘Perceived Coercion’ and its associations
Variation and inconsistency in findings Strongest support for
role of ‘procedural justice’ (or voice) quality of therapeutic relationship
From: Newton-Howes & Mullen, Psychiatric Services (2011)
And some recent studies:Hoyer, 2007Katsakou et al, 2011Thorgerson et al, 2010Sheehan & Burns, 2011
Therapeutic relationship in the context of perceived coercion in a psychiatric population:Anastasia Theodoridoun, et al (2012)
Perceived coercion and therapeutic relationship
Sheehan K & Burns T: Psychiatric Services (2011)
Perceived coercion and therapeutic relationship
Galon & Wineman (2011)
Perceived coercion and ‘procedural justice’
Physical coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice in the involuntary admission and future engagement with mental health services. O'Donoghue B, et al. Eur Psychiatry. 2011
Perceived coercion and ‘procedural justice’
Perception of coercion:Was involuntary admission justified?
Priebe et al, 2010: Patients’ views of involuntary hospital admission after 1 and 3 months: prospective study in 11 European countries
Variation: Interventions
Interventions to reduce coercion will inevitably be ‘complex’
The ‘control’ condition may vary greatly There may be major difficulties in ensuring
fidelity across centres
Crimson study: variations by site
Centre Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
‘Individualised’ CPA crisis plan at baseline
17% 40% 20%
At least one treatment refusal in JCP
18% 39% 43%
JCP word-count 444 378 536
Ethical issues
Some RCTs would not be ethical Important groups of patients are excluded
Capacity to consent When can research proceed without capacity?
Sensitivity about research in this area Vulnerability v. fear of negative reactions
So what can we do?
Research is crucial if we seek improvements in practice Accept that it is primarily of local significance (and accept the
consequences of this for researchers; provide important details of local context) Think about interventions that might be generalisable
(e.g. advance statements)
For intervention studies, an adequate ‘formative period’ is necessary
Think about whether models developed elsewhere could be applied locally (e.g. the contexts share similar features)
RCTs may have only a limited role Involve patients as collaborators in the research (and
encourage a dialogue between them and clinician researchers)