Service users' experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies.
Bethany Griffin, John Baker, Katharina Sophie Vogt, Jessica Rich, Judith Johnson
{"title":"Service users' experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies.","authors":"Bethany Griffin, John Baker, Katharina Sophie Vogt, Jessica Rich, Judith Johnson","doi":"10.1080/09638237.2025.2478372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a focus globally on reducing restrictive practices in mental healthcare. However, we know little about how service users experience restrictive practices generally.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore and synthesise experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatients mental health settings and to report on the depth and breadth of the literature. Methods. CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, MEDLINE and Embase were searched. Qualitative studies exploring the service user experience of restrictive practices were included and analysed using meta-ethnographic synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven papers were included. Restrictive practices are experienced negatively by service users, who feel punished and powerless when the therapeutic relationship is weak, and communication is lacking. The third-order constructs were: (1) anti-therapeutic and dehumanising, (2) a vicious cycle, (3) an abuse of power and (4) the critical role of support and communication (subthemes: (i) the impact of communication and (ii) how support and communication can minimise negative impacts).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants suggest that increasing supportive communication and detailing the decision making for using restrictive practices, would reduce feelings of coercion and increase trust in staff. Future research into the experience of restrictive practice should aim to capture the experience of informal restrictive practices such as locked doors and coercive language.</p><p><strong>Prsima/prospero statement: </strong>The review has been conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; see Supplemental Materials Table S1) and the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guidelines (eMERGE; see Supplemental Materials Table S2). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023399272; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023399272).</p>","PeriodicalId":48135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2025.2478372","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is a focus globally on reducing restrictive practices in mental healthcare. However, we know little about how service users experience restrictive practices generally.
Aim: To explore and synthesise experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatients mental health settings and to report on the depth and breadth of the literature. Methods. CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, MEDLINE and Embase were searched. Qualitative studies exploring the service user experience of restrictive practices were included and analysed using meta-ethnographic synthesis.
Results: Twenty-seven papers were included. Restrictive practices are experienced negatively by service users, who feel punished and powerless when the therapeutic relationship is weak, and communication is lacking. The third-order constructs were: (1) anti-therapeutic and dehumanising, (2) a vicious cycle, (3) an abuse of power and (4) the critical role of support and communication (subthemes: (i) the impact of communication and (ii) how support and communication can minimise negative impacts).
Conclusions: Participants suggest that increasing supportive communication and detailing the decision making for using restrictive practices, would reduce feelings of coercion and increase trust in staff. Future research into the experience of restrictive practice should aim to capture the experience of informal restrictive practices such as locked doors and coercive language.
Prsima/prospero statement: The review has been conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; see Supplemental Materials Table S1) and the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guidelines (eMERGE; see Supplemental Materials Table S2). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023399272; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023399272).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Mental Health is an international forum for the latest research in the mental health field. Reaching over 65 countries, the journal reports on the best in evidence-based practice around the world and provides a channel of communication between the many disciplines involved in mental health research and practice. The journal encourages multi-disciplinary research and welcomes contributions that have involved the users of mental health services. The international editorial team are committed to seeking out excellent work from a range of sources and theoretical perspectives. The journal not only reflects current good practice but also aims to influence policy by reporting on innovations that challenge traditional ways of working.