Perceptions Among Mental Health Professionals Regarding the Intrusiveness of Coercive Measures: A Danish Regional Survey.

Abstract

Background: Although hotly disputed, coercive measures are widely used in mental health services globally. In Denmark, to ensure the rights of patients, special psychiatric legislation that emphasizes the imperative to always use the least intrusive intervention has been implemented. This raises the question of which coercive measures are perceived as being less intrusive than others.

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of Danish mental health professionals regarding the intrusiveness of various coercive measures used in mental health settings.

Methods: We conducted a web-based survey among 132 mental health professionals (response rate: 22%). The participants rated the intrusiveness of different coercive measures using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results: Mental health professionals perceived mechanical restraint as being the most intrusive coercive intervention (belt and strap fixation received a VAS rating of 92 out of 100). Conversely, body searches and observation were perceived as being among the least intrusive measures, with VAS ratings of 35 and 50, respectively. Participants with different professional backgrounds, including general and forensic mental health workers, tended to perceive the coercive measures included in this study as being equally intrusive.

Conclusion: The participating mental health professionals generally perceived belt fixation as a highly intrusive measure, whereas seclusion, which is currently illegal under Danish law, was considered less intrusive. Because of the small sample size in this study, caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions based on the findings. Nevertheless, the study may add to how the principle of using the least intrusive measure is interpreted.