Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Atypon full text link Atypon
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2011 Apr;65(2):133-7.
doi: 10.3109/08039488.2010.513068. Epub 2010 Aug 24.

Attitudes to coercion at two Norwegian psychiatric units

Affiliations

Attitudes to coercion at two Norwegian psychiatric units

Rolf Wynn et al. Nord J Psychiatry.2011 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Many countries allow for the use of restraint and seclusion in emergencies with psychiatric inpatients. Authors have suggested that the attitudes of staff are of importance to the use of restraint and seclusion.

Aim: To examine the attitudes to coercion at two Norwegian psychiatric units. In contrast to the idea that attitudes to coercion vary much within and between institutions, we hypothesized that staff's attitudes would be quite similar.

Methods: We distributed a questionnaire to staff at two psychiatric units in two Norwegian counties. Eight wards were included. The questionnaire contained fictitious case histories with one patient that was violent and one patient that was self-harming, and staff were asked to describe how they would intervene in each emergency. Emergency strategies were sorted according to degree of restrictiveness, from the highly restrictive (restraint, seclusion) to the unrestrictive (talking, offering medication). Data were analysed with regression analyses.

Results: There was only a limited degree of variance in how staff at the different units and various groups of staff responded. Staff were more likely to favour a highly restrictive intervention when the patients were physically violent. Male staff and unskilled staff were significantly more prone to choosing a highly restrictive intervention.

Conclusions: Our hypothesis was confirmed, as there was a limited degree of variance in staff's responses with respect to degree of restrictiveness. The study supported the idea that a range of different interventions are used in emergency situations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Atypon full text link Atypon
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp