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

Frontiers Media SA full text link Frontiers Media SA Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2021 Jan 18:11:573240.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.573240. eCollection 2020.

A German Version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. Development and Empirical Validation

Affiliations

A German Version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. Development and Empirical Validation

Simone A Efkemann et al. Front Psychiatry..

Abstract

Background: Individual staff factors, such as personality traits and attitudes, are increasingly seen as an important factor in the reduction of coercion in mental health services. At the same time, only a few validated instruments exist to measure those factors and examine their influence on the use of coercion.Aim: The present study aimed to develop and validate a German version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS).Methods: The original English version of the SACS published was translated into German. Subsequently, it was empirically validated on a sample ofN = 209 mental health professionals by conducting an exploratory factor analysis.Results: The three-factor structure in the original version of the SACS, consisting of critical, pragmatic and positive attitudes toward the use of coercion, could not be replicated. Instead, the German version revealed one factor ranging from rejecting to approving the use of coercion.Conclusion: The SACS is one of the first instruments created to assess staff attitudes toward coercion in a validated way. The version of the instrument developed in this study allows for a validated assessment of those attitudes in German. Our results highlight the ethical importance of using validated measurements in studies on the role of staff factors in the reduction of coercion.

Keywords: attitudes research; coercive measures; compulsory treatment; involuntary admission; mental health care; psychiatry; test adaptation.

Copyright © 2021 Efkemann, Scholten, Bottlender, Juckel and Gather.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scree plot of explorative factor analysis for all items of the German SACS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Barbui C, Purgato M, Abdulmalik J, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Eaton J, Gureje O, et al. . Efficacy of interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services: umbrella review of randomised evidence. Br J Psychiatry. (2020). 10.1192/bjp.2020.144. [Epub ahead of print]. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gooding P, McSherry B, Roper C. Preventing and reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health services: an international scoping review of English-language studies. Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica. (2020) 142:27–39. 10.1111/acps.13152 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Armgart C, Schaub M, Hoffmann K, Illes F, Emons B, Jendreyschak J, et al. . Negative emotions and understanding—patients' perspective on coercion. Psychiatrische Praxis. (2013) 40:278–84. 10.1055/s-0033-1343159 - DOI - PubMed
    1. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons wit Disabilities (CRPD): Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly (2007).
    1. Scholten M, Gather J. Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward. J Med Ethics. (2018) 44:226–33. 10.1136/medethics-2017-104414 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Frontiers Media SA full text link Frontiers Media SA Free PMC article
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