Determinants of Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction During Long-Term Involuntary In-patient Treatment of Dual-Diagnosis Patients

INTRODUCTION: Treatment resistance and disengagement from mental health services are major obstacles in the treatment of dual diagnosis patients with Severe Mental Illness. The patients in this study were admitted to a long-term involuntary treatment facility. AIM OF THE STUDY: To study which patient experiences and perceptions are related to the outcome measures Subjective Quality of Life (SQOL) and Treatment Satisfaction (TS) during the long-term involuntary treatment. METHODS: Patients were invited for an interview by an independent researcher, which included self-report questionnaires. The structured interviews included self-assessing Helping Alliance, Insight, Attitude toward involuntary admission, Perceived coercion and Perceived benefit were studied as determinants of SQOL and TS. The relationship between the determinants and the outcomes were analyzed by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Patient reported outcomes from dual diagnosis patients in a long-term treatment facility, showed that most of the patients, in spite of the involuntary character of the treatment, were satisfied with the treatment. With respect to the determinants of SQOL and TS the perceptions that “My opinion is taken into account” and “Perceived benefits of the treatment” are strong predictors of both the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows that the most important aspects for treatment satisfaction and quality of life of dual-diagnosis patients admitted involuntary to long-term treatment, are being listened to (being taken seriously) and experiencing improvements during treatment. These qualities reflect the goals of Shared Decision Making and Perceived Procedural Justice in treatment. The study also corroborates earlier findings that even when treated involuntarily, patients might not hold particular negative views regarding their treatment

Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science