Knowledge on types of treatment pressure. A cross-sectional study among mental health professionals

Treatment pressure restricts patients' voluntary and autonomous decisions. Yet interventions involving treatment pressure are widely used in mental health and psychosocial services. This cross-sectional study explored whether mental health professionals' knowledge on five types of treatment pressure (no coercion, persuasion or conviction, leverage, threat, and formal coercion) was associated with sociodemographic, professional and contextual factors. A more positive attitude towards interventions involving treatment pressure was associated with underrating the level of those interventions compared with a predefined default value. The treatment setting and professional group played a minor role in 'leverage' and 'formal coercion' types of treatment pressure, respectively

Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC)

Background: Healthcare professionals can be a source of stigma and discrimination for people with mental illness, and anti-stigma programs are needed for this target group. However, there is no validated German language scale to assess attitudes of healthcare professionals towards people with mental illness. This study had the aim to validate the German language version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), a self-report measure of stigmatizing attitudes. Methods: Staff (n = 392) on general psychiatric inpatient wards (excluding child, forensic and geriatric psychiatry) at five psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland (n = 3) and Germany (n = 2) participated in the study. The internal consistency of the OMS-HC was examined as well as its factor structure using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. To assess the scale's concurrent validity, we used the Social Distance Scale. Results: Internal consistency for the OMS-HC total score was good (α = 0.74), acceptable for the subscales Attitudes (α = 0.62) and Social Distance (α = 0.69), and poor for the Disclosure subscale (α = 0.55). The original three-factor structure fit our data well. The OMS-HC total score and the Social Distance subscale score were significantly correlated with the Social Distance Scale, supporting concurrent validity. Conclusion: The German version of the OMS-HC demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and can be recommended for future research and intervention evaluation. Keywords: Attitudes; Mental illness; Psychometrics; Recovery; Social distance; Stigma; Therapeutic relationship

Dialogue as a Response to the Psychiatrization of Society? Potentials of the Open Dialogue Approach

In recent decades, the use of psychosocial and psychiatric care systems has increased worldwide. A recent article proposed the concept of psychiatrization as an explanatory framework, describing multiple processes responsible for the spread of psychiatric concepts and forms of treatment. This article aims to explore the potentials of the Open Dialogue (OD) approach for engaging in less psychiatrizing forms of psychosocial support. While OD may not be an all-encompassing solution to de-psychiatrization, this paper refers to previous research showing that OD has the potential to 1) limit the use of neuroleptics, 2), reduce the incidences of mental health problems and 3) decrease the use of psychiatric services. It substantiates these potentials to de-psychiatrize psychosocial support by exploring the OD’s internal logic, its use of language, its processes of meaning-making, its notion of professionalism, its promotion of dialogue and how OD is set up structurally. The conclusion touches upon the dangers of co-optation, formalization and universalization of the OD approach and stresses the need for more societal, layperson competencies in dealing with psychosocial crises.peerReviewe