Dataset Information

Variations in patterns of involuntary hospitalisation and in legal frameworks: an international comparative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rising annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation have been reported in England and some other higher-income countries, but the reasons for this increase are unclear. We aimed to describe the extent of variations in involuntary annual hospitalisation rates between countries, to compare trends over time, and to explore whether variations in legislation, demographics, economics, and health-care provision might be associated with variations in involuntary hospitalisation rates.

Methods

We compared annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation between 2008 and 2017 (where available) for 22 countries across Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. We also obtained data on national legislation, demographic and economic factors (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, prevalence of inequality and poverty, and the percentage of populations who are foreign born, members of ethnic minorities, or living in urban settings), and service characteristics (health-care spending and provision of psychiatric beds and mental health staff). Annual incidence data were obtained from government sources or published peer-reviewed literature.

Findings

The median rate of involuntary hospitalisation was 106·4 (IQR 58·5 to 150·9) per 100 000 people, with Austria having the highest (282 per 100 000 individuals) and Italy the lowest (14·5 per 100 000 individuals) most recently available rates. We observed no relationship between annual involuntary hospitalisation rates and any characteristics of the legal framework. Higher national rates of involuntary hospitalisation were associated with a larger number of beds (β coefficient 0·65, 95% CI 0·10 to 1·20, p=0·021), higher GDP per capita purchasing power parity (β coefficient 1·84, 0·30 to 3·38, p=0·019), health-care spending per capita (β coefficient 15·92, 3·34 to 28·49, p=0·013), the proportion of foreign-born individuals in the population (β coefficient 7·32, 0·44 to 14·19, p=0·037), and lower absolute poverty (β coefficient -11·5, -22·6 to -0·3, p=0·044). There was no evidence of an association between annual involuntary hospitalisation incidence and any other demographic, economic, or health-care indicator.

Interpretation

Variations between countries were large and for the most part unexplained. We found a higher annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation to be associated with a lower rate of absolute poverty, with higher GDP and health-care spending per capita, a higher proportion of foreign-born individuals in a population, and larger numbers of inpatient beds, but limitations in ecological research must be noted, and the associations were weak. Other country-level demographic, economic, and health-care delivery indicators and characteristics of the legislative system appeared to be unrelated to annual involuntary hospitalisation rates. Understanding why involuntary hospitalisation rates vary so much could be advanced through a more fine-grained analysis of the relationships between involuntary hospitalisation and social context, clinical practice, and how legislation is implemented in practice.

Funding

Commissioned by the Department of Health and funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) via the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit.

SUBMITTER: Sheridan Rains L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6475657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the scarce evidence for patients' benefits of coercion and its well-documented negative effects, the use of compulsion is still very common around Europe, with important variations among different countries. These variations have been partially explained by the different legal frameworks, but also by several individual-related, system-related and area-related characteristics, identified as predictors of the use of coercive measures. This study aimed to compare the socio-demographic and clinical profile as well as the referral and hospitalisation process of people voluntarily and involuntarily hospitalized in order to identify which factors could be associated with the use of coercion.MethodsAll psychiatric admissions occurred between the 1st January 2015 and the 31st December 2015 were included in this retrospective study (n?=?5027). The whole sample was split into two subgroups accordingly to the hospitalisation legal status at admission (voluntary vs involuntary) and differences between the two groups were examined. In order to identify the factors associated with coercion, all the variables reaching a p?<?.01 level of significance when comparing the two groups were included as independent variables into a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsGlobally, 62% of the admissions were voluntary and 38% were involuntary. Compared to the voluntary group, involuntary patients were significantly older, more frequently widowed and living in one specific district, and had a main diagnosis of schizophrenia (F20-F29) or organic mental disorders (F00-F09). People affected by organic mental disorders (F00-F09), with higher levels of psychotic symptoms, aggression and problems with medication adherence, were more likely to be involuntarily admitted. Moreover, living in District 1, being referred by a general practitioner, a general hospital or a psychiatric hospital and being involuntarily admitted during the previous 12?months, was associated with a higher risk of coercion.ConclusionsThis study identified several individual-related, as well as system-related factors associated with the use of coercion. These results allowed us to trace a clearer profile of high-risk patients and to provide several inputs that could help local authorities, professionals and researchers to develop better-targeted alternative interventions reducing the use of coercion.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the life-saving work they perform, community health workers (CHWs) have long been subject to global debate about their remuneration. There is now, however, an emerging consensus that CHWs should be paid. As the discussion evolves from whether to financially remunerate CHWs to how to do so, there is an urgent need to better understand the types of CHW payment models and their implications.MethodsThis study examines the legal framework on CHW compensation in five countries: Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. In order to map the characteristics of each approach, a review of the regulatory framework governing CHW compensation in each country was undertaken. Law firms in each of the five countries were engaged to support the identification and interpretation of relevant legal documents. To guide the search and aid in the creation of uniform country profiles, a standardized set of questions was developed, covering: (i) legal requirements for CHW compensation, (ii) CHW compensation mechanisms, and (iii) CHW legal protections and benefits.ResultsThe five countries profiled represent possible archetypes for CHW compensation: Brazil (public), Ghana (volunteer-based), Nigeria (private), Rwanda (cooperatives with performance based incentives) and South Africa (hybrid public/private). Advantages and disadvantages of each model with respect to (i) CHWs, in terms of financial protection, and (ii) the health system, in terms of ease of implementation, are outlined.ConclusionsWhile a strong legal framework does not necessarily translate into high-quality implementation of compensation practices, it is the first necessary step. Certain approaches to CHW compensation - particularly public-sector or models with public sector wage floors - best institutionalize recommended CHW protections. Political will and long-term financing often remain challenges; removing ecosystem barriers - such as multilateral and bilateral restrictions on the payment of salaries - can help governments institutionalize CHW payment.