Self-binding directives in psychiatric practice: a systematic review of reasons

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are an ethically controversial type of advance decision making involving advance requests for involuntary treatment. This study systematically reviewed the academic literature on psychiatric SBDs to elucidate reasons for and against their use in psychiatric practice. Full-text articles were thematically analysed within the international, interdisciplinary authorship team to produce a hierarchy of reasons. We found 50 eligible articles. Reasons for SBD use were promoting service user autonomy, promoting wellbeing and reducing harm, improving relationships, justifying coercion, stakeholder support, and reducing coercion. Reasons against SBD use were diminishing service user autonomy, unmanageable implementation problems, difficulties with assessing mental capacity, challenging personal identity, legislative issues, and causing harm. A secondary finding was a clarified concept of capacity-sensitive SBDs. Future pilot implementation projects that operationalise the clarified definition of capacity-sensitive SBDs with safeguards around informed consent, capacity assessment, support for drafting, and independent review are required

Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries

BackgroundSelf-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs.AimsThis article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders’ views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.MethodComparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process.ResultsFindings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals’ confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns.ConclusionsStakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.<br/

"Voluntary in quotation marks"

$\bf Background:$ Psychological pressure refers to communicative strategies used by professionals and informal caregivers to influence the decision-making of service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment or social rules. This phenomenon is also commonly referred to as informal coercion or treatment pressure. Empirical studies indicated that psychological pressure is common in mental healthcare services. No generally accepted definition of psychological pressure is available to date. A first conceptual analysis of psychological pressure focused on staff communication to promote treatment adherence and distinguished between persuasion, interpersonal leverage, inducements and threats. $\bf Aim:$ The aim of this study was to develop a conceptual model of psychological pressure based on the perspectives of service users. $\bf Methods:$ Data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews. The sample consisted of 14 mental health service users with a self-reported psychiatric diagnosis and prior experience with coercion in mental healthcare. We used theoretical sampling and contacted participants via mental healthcare services and self-help groups to ensure a variety of attitudes toward the mental healthcare system in the sample. The study was conducted in Germany from October 2019 to January 2020. Data were analyzed according to grounded theory methodology. $\bf Results:$ The study indicated that psychological pressure is used not only to improve service users' adherence to recommended treatment but also to improve their adherence to social rules; that it is exerted not only by mental health professionals but also by relatives and friends; and that the extent to which service users perceive communication as involving psychological pressure depends strongly on contextual factors. Relevant contextual factors were the way of communicating, the quality of the personal relationship, the institutional setting, the material surroundings and the level of convergence between the parties' understanding of mental disorder. $\bf Conclusions:$ The results of the study highlight the importance of staff communication training and organizational changes for reducing the use of psychological pressure in mental healthcare services

Development and characterization of an indirect ELISA to detect SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-specific antibodies

The current Severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is a public health emergency of international concern. Sensitive and precise diagnostic tools are urgently needed. In this study, we developed a SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. The SARS-CoV-2 S1 ELISA was found to be specific [97.8% (95% CI, 96.7% - 98.5%)], reproducible and precise (intra-assay coefficient of variability (CV) 5.3%, inter-assay CV 7.9%). A standard curve and the interpolation of arbitrary ELISA units per milliliter served to reduce the variability between different tests and operators. Cross-reactivity to other human coronaviruses was addressed by using sera positive for MERS-CoV- and hCoV HKU1-specific antibodies. Monitoring antibody development in various samples of twenty-three and single samples of twenty-nine coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients revealed seroconversion and neutralizing antibodies against authentic SARS-CoV-2 in all cases. The comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 (S1) ELISA with a commercially available assay showed a better sensitivity for the in-house ELISA. The results demonstrate a high reproducibility, specificity and sensitivity of the newly developed ELISA, which is suitable for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein-specific antibody responses