Outpatient commitment and coercion in New Zealand: a matched comparison study

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that a degree of coercion is a necessary component in using outpatient commitment to attain therapeutic outcome for those people subject to mental health law. However, what degree of coercion is required and how it is sustained is poorly understood. There is speculation that patients' recognition of beneficial as well as unwanted aspects of outpatient commitment (ambivalence) maybe an indicator that the necessary level of coercion has been achieved to facilitate a therapeutic outcome. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the level of coercion perceived by those under outpatient commitment in New Zealand. Emphasis was given to consideration of the presence of ambivalence and the role of interactive processes, including procedural justice, in influencing patients' perceptions of coercion. METHOD: A cross-sectional comparative study was undertaken to compare the perceptions of coercion of patients on outpatient commitment (n = 69) to a matched sample of voluntary outpatients (n = 69), using the Perceived Coercion Scale. The influence of a range of variables, including patients' knowledge of and beliefs concerning outpatient commitment, were considered. RESULTS: Although the level of coercion for involuntary outpatients was relatively low, it was significantly higher than that experienced by voluntary outpatients. Yet involuntary outpatients were more likely to espouse benefits of outpatient commitment. Although there was an inverse correlation between perceptions of procedural justice and perceived coercion, procedural justice did not feature in the linear regression analysis. DISCUSSION: In the New Zealand context, involuntary outpatients hold contrasting views to outpatient commitment. We suggest that this ambivalence is an indicator that the degree of coercion is suffice to achieve therapeutic outcome. Furthermore, this study suggests the impact of procedural justice on patients' perceptions of coercion may be more crucial during admission to hospital than in the context of on-going community care.     

Violence against women associated with arrests for sex trade but not drug charges

The current study was designed to examine associations between gender-based violence and arrests due to sex trade or drug-related charges among a statewide sample of incarcerated women in Rhode Island. Incarcerated women were asked to participate in brief pre- and posttest surveys of their experiences of violence, sexual risk and substance use behaviors, as part of a study on the effectiveness of a family planning program in a state correctional facility; data from pretest surveys (N=447) were used for current analyses. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics were used to assess significant associations between gender-based violence variables (i.e., adolescent intimate partner violence (IPV), adult IPV, childhood sexual assault (SA), adolescent SA, and adult SA) and arrests due to sex trade or drug-related charges. Significant relationships were observed between arrests for sex trade and adult SA (OR=2.1, 95%CI=1.2-3.6), adolescent IPV (OR=2.5, 95%CI=1.5-4.1), and adult IPV (OR=1.7, 95%CI=1.1-2.6); no significant associations were observed for drug-related charges. Findings from the current study demonstrate that experiences of gender-based violence are associated with arrests for sex trade but not drug-related charges. Interventions for incarcerated women are needed to consider and address history of victimization from gender-based violence and its relation to women's historic and future sex trade involvement.     

Factors affecting perceptions of medical errors

The purpose of the study was to assess how three factors affect subjects' perceptions of a medical error made in a hypothetical scenario. The factors were (i) type of compensation system, (ii) degree of procedural “voice” present in the physician-patient relationship, and (iii) magnitude of damage sustained by the patient. Perceptions were defined to include subjects' (i) emotional reactions to the incident, (ii) causal attributions about the incident, (iii) evaluations of the faimess of the compensation systems, and (iv) compensation demands. Results indicated that damage magnitude was the only factor that affected subjects' emotional reactions to the described incident and their compensation requests. When damage was severe, subjects reacted more negatively to the event and demanded greater compensation. Subjects rated the no-fault system and greater voice conditions as more fair. In general, subjects causally analyzed the error incident in a manner that was less blameworthy of the physician when procedural justice was high, especially if this was combined with a no-fault compensation system. Results were discussed in terms of Wexler and Winick's (1991) model of therapeutic jurisprudence.