↓ Skip to main content

Tensions between policy and practice: A qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tensions between policy and practice: A qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital
Published in
International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth C. Fistein, Isabel C.H. Clare, Marcus Redley, Anthony J. Holland

Abstract

The use of detention for psychiatric treatment is widespread and sometimes necessary. International human rights law requires a legal framework to safeguard the rights to liberty and personal integrity by preventing arbitrary detention. However, research suggests that extra-legal factors may influence decisions to detain. This article presents observational and interview data to describe how decisions to detain are made in practice in one jurisdiction (England and Wales) where a tension between policy and practice has been described. The analysis shows that practitioners mould the law into 'practical criteria' that appear to form a set of operational criteria for identifying cases to which the principle of soft paternalism may be applied. Most practitioners also appear willing, albeit often reluctantly, to depart from their usual reliance on the principle of soft paternalism and authorise detention of people with the capacity to refuse treatment, in order to prevent serious harm. We propose a potential resolution for the tension between policy and practice: two separate legal frameworks to authorise detention, one with a suitable test of capacity, used to enact soft paternalism, and the other to provide legal justification for detention for psychiatric treatment of the small number of people who retain decision-making capacity but nonetheless choose to place others at risk by refusing treatment. This separation of detention powers into two systems, according to the principle that justifies the use of detention would be intellectually coherent, consistent with human rights instruments and, being consistent with the apparent moral sentiments of practitioners, less prone to idiosyncratic interpretations in practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Unspecified 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Unspecified 11 20%
Psychology 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,574,047
of 13,734,629 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Law & Psychiatry
#216
of 683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,304
of 262,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Law & Psychiatry
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,734,629 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.