Opinions of professionals and family members about the National mental health law regulating involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients: An international comparative study in 10 countries

• Published in: European Psychiatry
• Main Authors: Georgieva, I., Lauvrud, C., Almvik, R., Whittington, R.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 2017
• Subjects: Norway; Iceland
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.02.291; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0924933817325622?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0924933817325622?httpAccept=text/plain; https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0924933800203167

Introduction Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of persons with mental health problems are very diverse across countries: procedures for involuntary commitment and stakeholders involved in the initiation and decision making vary across countries; most laws include criteria of danger/risk, which take various forms in EU Member States’ legal frameworks, while the need for treatment in the best interests of the patient is sufficient to detain individuals in other countries, etc. Objectives This study will compare the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the National mental health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in ten countries: Ireland, Iceland, UK, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway and India. Aims To gain insights into stakeholders’ satisfaction with the operation of their national legislation and to compare the effectiveness and acceptability of different legislative processes across countries. Such scientific findings are needed in order to improve and harmonize legal practices, and to enhance fundamental rights protection of persons with mental health problems, which eventually could result in a lower rate of compulsory admissions. Methods A short anonymous questionnaire consisting of 9 items was developed, using the online software Survey Monkey. It was distributed to representative samples via e-mail to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental health nurses, tribunal members, guards and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert- scale. Results/Conclusions The study's results and conclusions will be presented at the conference. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.