Cargando…

Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care

BACKGROUND: Influence strategies such as persuasion and interpersonal leverage are used in mental health care to influence patient behaviour and improve treatment adherence. One ethical concern about using such strategies is that they may constitute coercive behaviour ("informal coercion")...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valenti, Emanuele, Giacco, Domenico
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9587610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08555-5
_version_ 1784813943669129216
author Valenti, Emanuele
Giacco, Domenico
author_facet Valenti, Emanuele
Giacco, Domenico
author_sort Valenti, Emanuele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Influence strategies such as persuasion and interpersonal leverage are used in mental health care to influence patient behaviour and improve treatment adherence. One ethical concern about using such strategies is that they may constitute coercive behaviour ("informal coercion") and negatively impact patient satisfaction and the quality of care. However, some influence strategies may affect patients' perceptions, so an umbrella definition of “informal coercion” may be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, previous research indicates that professionals also perceive dissonance between theoretical explanations of informal coercion and their behaviours in clinical practice. This study analysed mental health professionals’ (MHPs) views and the perceived ethical implications of influence strategies in community care. METHODS: Qualitative secondary data analysis of a focus group study was used to explore the conflict between theoretical definitions and MHPs’ experiences concerning the coerciveness of influence strategies. Thirty-six focus groups were conducted in the main study, with 227 MHPs from nine countries participating. RESULTS: The findings indicate that not all the influence strategies discussed with participants can be defined as “informal coercion”, but they become coercive when they imply the use of a lever, have the format of a conditional offer and when the therapeutic proposal is not a patient’s free choice but is driven by professionals. MHPs are rarely aware of these tensions within their everyday practice; consequently, it is possible that coercive practices are inadvertently being used, with no standard regarding their application. Our findings suggest that levers and the type of leverage used in communications with the patient are also relevant to differentiating leveraged and non-leveraged influence. CONCLUSION: Our findings may help mental health professionals working in community care to identify and discuss influence strategies that may lead to unintended coercive practices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9587610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95876102022-10-23 Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care Valenti, Emanuele Giacco, Domenico BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Influence strategies such as persuasion and interpersonal leverage are used in mental health care to influence patient behaviour and improve treatment adherence. One ethical concern about using such strategies is that they may constitute coercive behaviour ("informal coercion") and negatively impact patient satisfaction and the quality of care. However, some influence strategies may affect patients' perceptions, so an umbrella definition of “informal coercion” may be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, previous research indicates that professionals also perceive dissonance between theoretical explanations of informal coercion and their behaviours in clinical practice. This study analysed mental health professionals’ (MHPs) views and the perceived ethical implications of influence strategies in community care. METHODS: Qualitative secondary data analysis of a focus group study was used to explore the conflict between theoretical definitions and MHPs’ experiences concerning the coerciveness of influence strategies. Thirty-six focus groups were conducted in the main study, with 227 MHPs from nine countries participating. RESULTS: The findings indicate that not all the influence strategies discussed with participants can be defined as “informal coercion”, but they become coercive when they imply the use of a lever, have the format of a conditional offer and when the therapeutic proposal is not a patient’s free choice but is driven by professionals. MHPs are rarely aware of these tensions within their everyday practice; consequently, it is possible that coercive practices are inadvertently being used, with no standard regarding their application. Our findings suggest that levers and the type of leverage used in communications with the patient are also relevant to differentiating leveraged and non-leveraged influence. CONCLUSION: Our findings may help mental health professionals working in community care to identify and discuss influence strategies that may lead to unintended coercive practices. BioMed Central 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9587610/ /pubmed/36271380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08555-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Valenti, Emanuele
Giacco, Domenico
Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title_full Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title_fullStr Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title_full_unstemmed Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title_short Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
title_sort persuasion or coercion? an empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9587610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08555-5
work_keys_str_mv AT valentiemanuele persuasionorcoercionanempiricalethicsanalysisabouttheuseofinfluencestrategiesinmentalhealthcommunitycare
AT giaccodomenico persuasionorcoercionanempiricalethicsanalysisabouttheuseofinfluencestrategiesinmentalhealthcommunitycare