Beeri Simone, Baumberger Eliane, Zwakhalen Sandra, Hahn Sabine
PZM Psychiatric Centre Münsingen AG, Münsingen, Switzerland.
Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Applied Research & Development in Nursing, Bern, Switzerland.
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2025 Jun;34(3):e70076. doi: 10.1111/inm.70076.
Coercion in mental health care is complex and controversial, often seen as a potential human rights violation. Coercion can manifest in various forms and is subject to ethical and legal judgement. Formal coercion includes measures restricting movement or providing treatment without consent. Informal coercion involves the use of communication and subtle interventions by mental health professionals to control, influence, manipulate or pressure patients, aiming to elicit specific behaviours and shape their decisions. Informal coercion often occurs in psychiatric care. However, it is not legislated; it is not discussed in clinical guidelines, and it is not formalised or documented. This scoping review aims to map the current understanding of informal coercion in inpatient psychiatry. Six databases were searched for studies examining definitions and conceptualisations of informal coercion. Data extraction included a summary and comparison of study characteristics, definitions and conceptualisations followed by thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke's approach. Twenty-nine articles were included in the synthesis. The analysis led to the proposal of a definition of informal coercion and identified three key themes: first, the professionals' intentions, with attributes identified as patient protection or self-protection; second, the methods used, including the attributes communication patterns, 'legal' coercion, deception, manipulation and abuse of power; and third, contextual factors leading to informal coercion, with attributes such as cultural adaptation, rule conformity and professionals' attitudes and skills. This study provides a conceptualisation for understanding informal coercion in inpatient psychiatry, highlighting its complexity and the need for ethical and professional reflection. Developing clear guidelines and standards is essential for protecting patient autonomy and dignity while enabling effective therapeutic interventions. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The research protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ck3et).
精神卫生保健中的强制手段复杂且具争议性,常被视为一种潜在的侵犯人权行为。强制手段可表现为多种形式,并受到伦理和法律评判。正式强制手段包括未经同意限制行动或提供治疗的措施。非正式强制手段涉及精神卫生专业人员运用沟通和微妙干预来控制、影响、操纵或施压患者,旨在引发特定行为并左右其决定。非正式强制手段常在精神科护理中出现。然而,它未被立法规范;临床指南中未对其进行讨论;也未被正式化或记录在案。本综述旨在梳理当前对住院精神科中非正式强制手段的理解。检索了六个数据库,以查找研究非正式强制手段定义和概念化的研究。数据提取包括对研究特征、定义和概念化的总结与比较,随后采用布劳恩和克拉克的方法进行主题分析。共有29篇文章纳入综合分析。分析得出了非正式强制手段的定义,并确定了三个关键主题:其一,专业人员的意图,其属性被确定为保护患者或自我保护;其二,使用的方法,包括沟通模式、“合法”强制、欺骗、操纵和权力滥用等属性;其三,导致非正式强制手段的背景因素,其属性如文化适应、规则遵守以及专业人员的态度和技能。本研究为理解住院精神科中的非正式强制手段提供了一种概念化方式,突显了其复杂性以及进行伦理和专业反思的必要性。制定明确的指南和标准对于保护患者自主权和尊严、同时实现有效的治疗干预至关重要。试验注册:研究方案已在开放科学框架(https://osf.io/ck3et)中注册。