The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 1997
The use of guardianship legislation for anorexia nervosa: a report of 15 cases.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Griffiths R A, Beumont P J, Russell J, Touyz S W, Moore G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This paper investigates compulsory treatment under guardianship legislation for 15 anorexia nervosa patients admitted to four eating disorders units in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between 1991 and 1994.
METHODS: A retrospective follow-up was conducted. This involved an analysis of sociodemographic, clinical, eating and weight history, and Guardianship Order details obtained from medical records. This small sample was compared to a larger sample of anorexia nervosa patients admitted voluntarily to a specialised eating disorder unit in NSW. Further follow-up included a structured interview using the Morgan-Russell Assessment Outcome Schedule at least 1 year after admission for compulsory treatment.
RESULTS: For those treated involuntarily, a larger number came from metropolitan Sydney and a larger percentage were unemployed, were purgers and required specialist medical consultations. A significantly higher proportion came from higher socioeconomic groups, and the duration of stay in hospital while patients were under guardianship was significantly greater. A high degree of comorbidity was noted. There were similarities between those treated involuntarily and those treated voluntarily for the source of referral, marital status and Body Mass Index on admission and discharge. Only three patients accepted a follow-up interview using the Morgan-Russell Outcome Schedule. Two of them had made a good recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: It was noted that the guardianship sample comprised a more severely III group than anorexic patients treated voluntarily. The nature of guardianship legislation compared to mental health law was discussed and advice offered to clinicians contemplating and implementing compulsory treatment.
METHODS: A retrospective follow-up was conducted. This involved an analysis of sociodemographic, clinical, eating and weight history, and Guardianship Order details obtained from medical records. This small sample was compared to a larger sample of anorexia nervosa patients admitted voluntarily to a specialised eating disorder unit in NSW. Further follow-up included a structured interview using the Morgan-Russell Assessment Outcome Schedule at least 1 year after admission for compulsory treatment.
RESULTS: For those treated involuntarily, a larger number came from metropolitan Sydney and a larger percentage were unemployed, were purgers and required specialist medical consultations. A significantly higher proportion came from higher socioeconomic groups, and the duration of stay in hospital while patients were under guardianship was significantly greater. A high degree of comorbidity was noted. There were similarities between those treated involuntarily and those treated voluntarily for the source of referral, marital status and Body Mass Index on admission and discharge. Only three patients accepted a follow-up interview using the Morgan-Russell Outcome Schedule. Two of them had made a good recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: It was noted that the guardianship sample comprised a more severely III group than anorexic patients treated voluntarily. The nature of guardianship legislation compared to mental health law was discussed and advice offered to clinicians contemplating and implementing compulsory treatment.