'Comparative Academic Review\r'

'Introduction\r\nThe aspects of psychiatrical give-and-take of patients put on been widely discussed in the pedantic literature on the motif in the destination several decades. In two separate studies, Christina Katsakou et el. (2010) and Jelena Jankovic et. al (2011) trace the practical implications of give-and-take de unclouded and cargongivers’ experiences respectively. some(prenominal)(prenominal) studies cover limited aspects of psychiatric discourse in the UK.\r\nThe start account foc social occasions on the compulsion and intercession satis faction among patients, who comport been admitted for psychiatric treatment involuntarily. The look, conducted in 2010, reveals the impact of obsession on the satisfaction of treatment among patients, as well as the mental aspects of irresistible impulse. The moot has been conducted as an observation in 22 infirmarys in England, where a total of 778 patients were recruited (Katsakou et. al, 2010). Their satisfa ction with the treatment they true has been euphonyd at disparate stages: virtuoso week, hotshot month, three months and one and besides(a) year after the entree. In bless to measure the levels of satisfaction, the authors bind apply factors such(prenominal) as clinical improvement and clinical characteristics. The results from this think were perplexed using standard statistical analysis, and indicated an increase in the satisfaction among involuntarily admitted patients between their number 1 access jurisprudence and the different follow ups. The stand by find out, conducted in 2011, foc expenditures on the experiences of family cargongivers during involuntary hospital admissions of their relatives. It is a soft study, which used as a question mode semi-structured interviews, conducted with 29 c atomic number 18givers whose relatives hit been admitted involuntary in 12 hospitals across England (Jankovic et.al., 2011). Throughout the study, major themes have been identify, such as easiness and conflicting emotions, frustration with the ensure of acquiring help, etc. The results of the hour survey have cerebrate that the role of the family caregivers nates be enhanced if their duties are valued enough, without turning into a hitch. The purpose of this outline academic bay windowvass is to critically compare both studies, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses and possible contributions to the literature on the subject.\r\n both(prenominal) studies provide valuable insight on the subject of treatment of patients with mental illnesses, and reveal the interactive spirit of the clinical process as a propellant interaction between different elements †institutions, caregivers, and patients. Both studies neck to reveal the intricacy of the connection, which exists between obsession and satisfaction in the first case, and family caregivers as active elements in the process of involuntary admission in the guerilla case.\r\nTh e first study uses a quantitative look method and statistical analysis, foundationd on an observational study. The study has been conducted in 22 hospitals in England. The proceeds of the choice of this method for the purposes of study is its accuracy and straightforwardness. Results generateed by means of observation are easier to analyse, and graveled in a comprehensible and consistent manner. In terms of the design of the look, the use of measureline base is a feasible option, which meets the research aims of the study and unfolds different aspects of satisfaction among patients. The fact that the patients have been examined at three different periods following their first admission provides the researchers with the possibility to explore how satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) develops gradually. This is an chief(prenominal) induce of the research design deployed, because here satisfaction is discussed in relation to memory and emotions, which change over time. This cha ngeableness has been posed with the choice of the design. Also, it is a good way to operationalize and therefore measure the main variable †patients’ satisfaction.\r\nDespite the fact that the operationalization of satisfaction was enhanced through the use of specific research design, the study could have also benefited from a bigger emphasis on open interviews, conducted with a certain (perhaps smaller) portion of the patients. This is because interviews allow for more gip and personal issues to be uncovered in the research and these are issues which are usually unquantifiable and difficult to mark in observational studies and semi-structured interviews.\r\nAs far as data assembling is concerned, the authors of the first study have used two different models, designed to measure satisfaction †one concentrating on potential base lines predictions combining satisfaction scores from all time points (baselines, one month and three months) and an different one con centrating on the results from the follow ups only. The data was analysed using a three step model, and applying standard linear statistical analysis (Katskakou et.al, 2010:287-288). This plenary choice of methods and models for data collection has enhanced linear results, which allow readers to obtain an enormous view of satisfaction not only as an isolated variable, but also as a process, which is happening over time. However, one of the weaknesses of this study in the methodological part is the sampling. The researchers have attempted to obtain a representative i hold, covering hospitals from different geographic areas and patients of different ethnic and social backgrounds. Little, if anything is mentioned however on how the eligibility of the patients has been identified (eligibility criteria). Another weakness in the methodology part is related to the decreasing number of patients interviewed at the baseline, the first month and the third month and one year. For the baseli ne, the patients are 778, and for the one year follow up their number has decreased almost in prototype †396 (Katskakou et.al., 2010: 289). This big businessman pose some problems related with the generalizability of the results obtained and the union of observations. Although it would be a formidable task to curb the number of patients at each point merely the same, at least proximity in the come of interviewees could have been targeted. Another possible weakness of the study is related with the lack of causality between coercion and satisfaction. In other words, the study does not needfully reveal a cause-effect relationship between the two, because coercion in this observation has been explored as an individual projection. However, this discount also be looked at as an advantage, because a cause-effect relationship between two abstract concepts can oversimplify their existence in a peculiar(prenominal) setting.\r\nTo compare, the atomic number 16 study uses a very different methodology. It is a qualitative study, and the variables measured here are even more abstract compared to the first study. The psychological aspects of personal experiences relating to care are difficult to capture and quantify, and this is important to mention in the methodological review of the trice study. In terms of choice of methods, the authors have used semi-structured interviews, conducted among family caregivers of 29 patients admitted involuntary against 12 hospitals in England (Jankovic et.al., 2011: 1). Compared to the first study, here the sample is such(prenominal) smaller. It is debatable whether such a small sample can provide results, which are generalizable. by chance the authors have unconquerable to choose smaller number of participants in order to ob administer the matter more closely. Here it is important to score that the issue of carers’ experiences is handsome and often a stressful one. indeed a smaller sample would give the chance to conduct more minute interviews, and thus capturing nuances of the matter, which remain unexamined in studies involving larger samples, due(p) to time constraints. Another problem with the sample, just desire in the first study, is its ability to represent the population. A closer look at the participant’s characteristics in the second study reveals that in more than 50 percent of the cases, the relationship of the carer to the patient is â€Å" raise” (Jankovic et.al., 2011: 3). This fact could have influenced the results, since parents tend to be much more concerned for their children. They are concerned first as patients, and then as carers †therefore a more representative selection of the carers could have interpreted place (for example equal number of carers who are patients, partners, siblings or children). Yet, the study covers to make good use of thematic analysis, clustering answers of the patients and identifying four important themes †relief and conflicting emotions in response to the admission, frustration with the delay in getting help, being given the burden of care by service and difficulties with confidentiality (Jankovic et.al, 2011:3-4). Just care the first study, the methodology is well-implemented in terms of coding. In the second study, two independent researchers have been selected to code the interviews, and the results have been finalized through a joint news (Jankovic et.al, 2011:3).\r\nIn both studies, the methods chosen have met the research criteria, and have been meticulously implemented to produce comprehensive and well-themed results. Also, the proposed hypotheses have been well tested. Here it is important to note that both studies tackle issues, which are not good quantifiable or measurable. The first study concentrates on satisfaction among patients which have been involuntary admitted for treatment, while the other one focuses on an even more sensitive and abstract issue, related with persona l experiences among family caregivers in the cases when patients have been admitted for treatment. Therefore the authors of both studies have made evidentiary effort in the planning of the research, its design and performance in order to make the themes of their research measurable. As a result both studies have managed to frame consistent results. The first makes coercion and satisfaction measurable, with the instruction execution of a 0 to 5 scale of coercion and incorporating the results in a separate model. Critics would suggest that the method implemented in the first study is likewise rigid for the investigation of issues, which are deeply psychological and reflect the personal perceptions of patients on the way they have been treated. Although the study could have benefited from a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, its reliance on quantitative techniques only does not affect the overall validity of the results. Perhaps one of the biggest strengths of th is study is that through the interpretation of the results, the authors manage to reveal the connection between patients’ satisfaction and coercion as an individual perception. As already mentioned, the second study relies solely on a qualitative technique. They authors capture the nuances in the experiences of the caregivers, and interpret the results closely adhering to the themes, identified by them during the data analysis stage.\r\nBoth studies deal with aspects of psychiatric treatment, which are challenging due to their specificity. Therefore they both make evidential contribution to the literature and theory on the subject. The first study sheds light upon the complexity of coercion as an individual perception, and its results fall upon with those obtained in earlier studies (Lidz et.al, 1998; Sorgard, 2004). Observing coercion as an individual perception, projected by patients as a result of hospital surroundings and treatment, shows a major transition in clinical psychology, and a happy chance towards a more constructive approach for understand patients’ reactions. In this sense, this study can be sort as a constructivist study, because it measures how perceptions are formed and exemplified by limited patients in particular environments. It deviates from earlier studies on the subject, like the ones conducted by Svensson et al. (1994) and Spenseley (1980), which observe patients’ satisfaction with treatment in their entirely empirical dimensions, ignoring individual projections. Similarly, the findings and conclusions from the second study (Jankovic et.al, 2011) resonate with conclusions from previous research on the subject (Simson et. al, 2002; Jones et.al, 2009). Therefore this study belongs to a particular body of literature in clinical psychology, which explores the psychological and social impact on families of care for mass with mental disorders.\r\nBoth studies contribute to their relative subjects, and might have important implications in terms of polity reform in health care go for people with mental illnesses in the UK. Recommendations for policy-makers in this sector, stemming from Jankovic’s study include an improved service, which would ensure that carers obtain proper assistance and cooperation from hospitals prior to the admission of mentally unwell relatives. This would have positive implications to the quality of treatment of mentally unwell patients, by enhancing cooperation between carers and institutions, which would of necessity lead to a better distribution of responsibilities. Katsakou’s study might have policy implications as well, because it reveals the necessity for interventions, which would reduce patients’ perceived coercion.\r\nIn conclusion, both studies discussed in this review present specific aspects of treatment of mentally unwell patients. Despite some weaknesses in sampling, and some minor limitations, both studies make significant contribu tions in their relative fields, and offer new, and well-supported angles of interpretation on the themes they cover. Both studies make good use of research methods, despite the differences in the number of participants for the first and the second study. Some issues related to generalizability of the results have arisen, such as the decreasing number of observed patients in the first study and the small sample in the second study. Still, the data analysis and the interpretation of the results obtained have been meticulously carried out and well situated in the mount of existing literature. In addition, both studies might serve as a basis for policy-reform in the UK healthcare system, ultimately leading to improvement of the latter. In sum, the studies present cohesive and well-researched conclusions and can be a utilitarian reading for students and professionals, occupied in the field of clinical Psychiatry, Health Services and Public Policy. \r\nReference controversy: \r\nJankov ic J, Yeeles K, Katsakou C, Amos T, Morriss R, Rose D, Nichol P, McCabe R, Priebe S (2011) ‘Family caregivers’ experiences of involuntary psychiatric hospital admissions of their relatives †a qualitative study’, PLoS ONE 6(10): e25425.\r\nJones IR, Nilufar A, bitchy J, McLaren S, Rose D, Wykes T, et al. (2009) Illness careers and continuity of care in mental health services: A qualitative study of service users and carers. Soc Sci Med 69: 632â€639.\r\nKatsakou C, Bowers L, Amos T, Morriss R, Rose D, Wykes T, Priebe S (2010) ‘Coercion and Treatment Satisfaction Among Involuntary unhurrieds’, psychiatric Services 61: 286-292\r\nLidz C, Mulvey EP, Hoge SK (1998) et al: Factual sources of psychiatric patients’ perceptions\r\nof coercion in the hospital admission process. American daybook of Psychiatry 155:1254â€1260\r\nSimpson EL, House AO (2002) Involving users in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services: systematic re view. BMJ 325: 1265â€1268\r\nSorgaard K (2004): Patients’ perception of coercion in acute psychiatric wards: an intervention\r\nstudy. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 58:299â€304\r\nSpensley J, Edwards DW, White E (1980): Patient satisfaction and involuntary treatment. American\r\nJournal of Orthopsychiatry 50:725â€729\r\nSvensson B, Hansson L (1994) : Patient satisfaction with inpatient psychiatric care. Acta Psychiatrica\r\nScandinavica 90:379â€384\r\n'