Results
REGRESSION
The description of the sample’s socio-demographic and clinical variables is summarized in Tables 
Participants’ appraisal of the justification for the use of coercionResults of the bivariate regression analyses are displayed in Table 
Results of the bivariate regression analysesCI: Confidence Interval; CGI-S: Clinical Global Impression – Severity Scale; GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning. *p < 0.1A significant regression equation was found (
Results of the multiple linear regression modelCI: Confidence Interval; .CGI-S: Clinical Global Impression – Severity Scale. *p < 0.05Perception of the coercive measure as justified by staff-related factors (B = 0,540, p < 0,001) was significantly associated with CES scores, which confirmed our initial hypothesis. The type of coercive measures (B=-0,343, p = 0,017) and the severity of negative symptoms (B = 0,265, p = 0,011) were also significant predictors of the CES scores. The perception of the coercive measure as motivated by staff-related reasons was associated with higher CES scores. Mechanical restraint was also associated with higher CES scores, as was a higher severity of negative symptoms. Severity of symptoms as measured by the CGI-S and age were not significantly associated with CES scores. Level of insight was not correlated as well with CES scores.