居家强制治疗:探索早期病人、亲属和心理健康工作者经验的访谈研究。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
D A de Waardt, I C de Jong, M Lubben, I Haakma, C L Mulder, G A M Widdershoven
{"title":"居家强制治疗:探索早期病人、亲属和心理健康工作者经验的访谈研究。","authors":"D A de Waardt, I C de Jong, M Lubben, I Haakma, C L Mulder, G A M Widdershoven","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11787-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When introduced in 2020, the Netherlands' Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act included provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH). Although CCT has been incorporated into mental health care in many countries, its effectiveness is debated. We know of no other countries in which CTH has been adopted. The aim of this study is to evaluate how an early group of participants experienced CTH. They were drawn from three stakeholder groups: patients, relatives and mental-health workers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 17 open interviews were conducted with six patients, five relatives and six mental-health workers. All had experience with CTH. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five themes were identified: 1). Reasons for applying for a court order with options for CTH. The reasons included preventing harm, avoiding hospitalization, and providing a safety net. 2.) Participants' experiences with CTH in practice. The four most noteworthy experiences were related to the process of applying for a court order; compulsory home visits and the compulsory use of medication; the involvement of relatives during treatment; and the influence of CTH on the relationship between patients and relatives.  3.) The advantages and disadvantages of CTH. The most important advantages were avoiding hospitalization; improving medication adherence; facilitating easy access to care; early signaling of deterioration; early intervention; and regained autonomy. The most important disadvantages were restricted autonomy; fewer options for monitoring compared to hospitalization; and problems regarding control of patient behavior. 4.) Participants' preferences. All preferred CTH to hospitalization. 5.) Participants' suggestions for improving CTH. These included the need not only to provide patients with better information, but also to improve the involvement of relatives during treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The interviewees found that CTH might help to avoid hospitalization by providing stakeholders with more options for arranging effective care at home. Although this suggests that initial experiences of CTH under the new Dutch mental health law were positive, it is still uncertain whether CTH as currently implemented really differs from CCT.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1346"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compulsory treatment at home: an interview study exploring the experiences of an early group of patients, relatives and mental-health workers.\",\"authors\":\"D A de Waardt, I C de Jong, M Lubben, I Haakma, C L Mulder, G A M Widdershoven\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11787-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When introduced in 2020, the Netherlands' Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act included provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH). Although CCT has been incorporated into mental health care in many countries, its effectiveness is debated. We know of no other countries in which CTH has been adopted. The aim of this study is to evaluate how an early group of participants experienced CTH. They were drawn from three stakeholder groups: patients, relatives and mental-health workers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 17 open interviews were conducted with six patients, five relatives and six mental-health workers. All had experience with CTH. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five themes were identified: 1). Reasons for applying for a court order with options for CTH. The reasons included preventing harm, avoiding hospitalization, and providing a safety net. 2.) Participants' experiences with CTH in practice. The four most noteworthy experiences were related to the process of applying for a court order; compulsory home visits and the compulsory use of medication; the involvement of relatives during treatment; and the influence of CTH on the relationship between patients and relatives.  3.) The advantages and disadvantages of CTH. The most important advantages were avoiding hospitalization; improving medication adherence; facilitating easy access to care; early signaling of deterioration; early intervention; and regained autonomy. The most important disadvantages were restricted autonomy; fewer options for monitoring compared to hospitalization; and problems regarding control of patient behavior. 4.) Participants' preferences. All preferred CTH to hospitalization. 5.) Participants' suggestions for improving CTH. These included the need not only to provide patients with better information, but also to improve the involvement of relatives during treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The interviewees found that CTH might help to avoid hospitalization by providing stakeholders with more options for arranging effective care at home. Although this suggests that initial experiences of CTH under the new Dutch mental health law were positive, it is still uncertain whether CTH as currently implemented really differs from CCT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539426/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11787-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11787-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:荷兰的《强制精神保健法》于 2020 年出台,其中包括强制社区治疗(CCT)和强制在患者家中治疗(CTH)的规定。尽管许多国家已将 CCT 纳入精神卫生保健中,但其有效性仍存在争议。据我们所知,还没有其他国家采用强制社区治疗。本研究的目的是评估一组早期参与者是如何体验 CTH 的。他们来自三个利益相关群体:患者、亲属和心理健康工作者:总共进行了 17 次公开访谈,访谈对象包括 6 名患者、5 名亲属和 6 名心理健康工作者。所有受访者都有过使用普通话的经历。对访谈进行了主题分析:结果:确定了五个主题:1).申请带有选择性普通话的法庭命令的原因。原因包括预防伤害、避免住院和提供安全网。2.)参与者在实践中使用普通话的经验。最值得注意的四种经验涉及申请法院命令的程序;强制家访和强制用药;治疗期间亲属的参与;以及普通话对病人和亲属关系的影响。 3.)普通话的利弊。最重要的优点是避免住院;改善服药依从性;方便获得护理;及早发出病情恶化的信号;及早干预;重新获得自主权。最重要的缺点是自主权受到限制;与住院治疗相比,监测的选择较少;控制病人行为方面的问题。4.)参与者的偏好。与住院治疗相比,所有参与者都更倾向于继续治疗。5.)参与者对改善继续治疗的建议。这些建议包括不仅需要为病人提供更好的信息,还需要改善亲属在治疗过程中的参与:受访者认为,通过为利益相关者提供更多在家中安排有效护理的选择,以社区为家可能有助于避免住院。尽管这表明,根据荷兰新的精神健康法实施的社区关怀的初步经验是积极的,但目前实施的社区关怀是否真的有别于社区陪伴治疗仍不确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Compulsory treatment at home: an interview study exploring the experiences of an early group of patients, relatives and mental-health workers.

Background: When introduced in 2020, the Netherlands' Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act included provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH). Although CCT has been incorporated into mental health care in many countries, its effectiveness is debated. We know of no other countries in which CTH has been adopted. The aim of this study is to evaluate how an early group of participants experienced CTH. They were drawn from three stakeholder groups: patients, relatives and mental-health workers.

Methods: In total, 17 open interviews were conducted with six patients, five relatives and six mental-health workers. All had experience with CTH. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.

Results: Five themes were identified: 1). Reasons for applying for a court order with options for CTH. The reasons included preventing harm, avoiding hospitalization, and providing a safety net. 2.) Participants' experiences with CTH in practice. The four most noteworthy experiences were related to the process of applying for a court order; compulsory home visits and the compulsory use of medication; the involvement of relatives during treatment; and the influence of CTH on the relationship between patients and relatives.  3.) The advantages and disadvantages of CTH. The most important advantages were avoiding hospitalization; improving medication adherence; facilitating easy access to care; early signaling of deterioration; early intervention; and regained autonomy. The most important disadvantages were restricted autonomy; fewer options for monitoring compared to hospitalization; and problems regarding control of patient behavior. 4.) Participants' preferences. All preferred CTH to hospitalization. 5.) Participants' suggestions for improving CTH. These included the need not only to provide patients with better information, but also to improve the involvement of relatives during treatment.

Conclusion: The interviewees found that CTH might help to avoid hospitalization by providing stakeholders with more options for arranging effective care at home. Although this suggests that initial experiences of CTH under the new Dutch mental health law were positive, it is still uncertain whether CTH as currently implemented really differs from CCT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信