Exploring restrictive practices in inpatient eating disorder services: a scoping review.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Una Foye, Kaylie Sunshine, Helen West, Anna Carnegie, Jessica R Griffiths, Vanessa Kellerman, Geoff Brennan, John Baker, Alan Simpson
{"title":"Exploring restrictive practices in inpatient eating disorder services: a scoping review.","authors":"Una Foye, Kaylie Sunshine, Helen West, Anna Carnegie, Jessica R Griffiths, Vanessa Kellerman, Geoff Brennan, John Baker, Alan Simpson","doi":"10.1080/10640266.2026.2692538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Restrictive practices (RPs) encompass interventions that limit an individual's freedom, such as restraint, seclusion, and enforced treatment. While widely studied in acute mental health settings, their use within inpatient eating disorder services remains underexplored despite evidence of high prevalence. In addition to these formal restrictive interventions, eating disorder inpatient wards commonly employ structured behavioural rules as part of nutritional rehabilitation programs, including enforced rest periods, supervised meals, locked bathrooms, and limits on fluids or activity. A scoping review methodology following a five-step framework was implemented. Four databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched. The analysis involved both numerical and narrative synthesis in line with the framework. Thirty-six studies were included. Most originated from the UK, focused on anorexia nervosa, and used quantitative designs, with a substantial proportion conducted in child and adolescent inpatient settings. Common RPs included nasogastric tube feeding under restraint, involuntary admission, and physical restraint. Prevalence varied widely, with a small subset of patients accounting for most RP episodes. RPs were primarily applied in response to medical or nutritional risk rather than aggression, differentiating them from acute psychiatric contexts. Evidence regarding outcomes such as weight restoration, length of stay, and mortality was inconsistent, and RPs were frequently described by patients and staff as distressing, coercive, and potentially traumatic. Findings highlight the distinct nature of RP use in eating disorder settings and the need for context-specific policies, ethical guidance, and intervention strategies to minimize harm while ensuring patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":48835,"journal":{"name":"Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"1-44"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2026.2692538","RegionNum":3,"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

Restrictive practices (RPs) encompass interventions that limit an individual's freedom, such as restraint, seclusion, and enforced treatment. While widely studied in acute mental health settings, their use within inpatient eating disorder services remains underexplored despite evidence of high prevalence. In addition to these formal restrictive interventions, eating disorder inpatient wards commonly employ structured behavioural rules as part of nutritional rehabilitation programs, including enforced rest periods, supervised meals, locked bathrooms, and limits on fluids or activity. A scoping review methodology following a five-step framework was implemented. Four databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched. The analysis involved both numerical and narrative synthesis in line with the framework. Thirty-six studies were included. Most originated from the UK, focused on anorexia nervosa, and used quantitative designs, with a substantial proportion conducted in child and adolescent inpatient settings. Common RPs included nasogastric tube feeding under restraint, involuntary admission, and physical restraint. Prevalence varied widely, with a small subset of patients accounting for most RP episodes. RPs were primarily applied in response to medical or nutritional risk rather than aggression, differentiating them from acute psychiatric contexts. Evidence regarding outcomes such as weight restoration, length of stay, and mortality was inconsistent, and RPs were frequently described by patients and staff as distressing, coercive, and potentially traumatic. Findings highlight the distinct nature of RP use in eating disorder settings and the need for context-specific policies, ethical guidance, and intervention strategies to minimize harm while ensuring patient safety.

探索住院患者饮食失调服务的限制性做法:范围审查。
限制性做法(RPs)包括限制个人自由的干预措施,如约束、隔离和强制治疗。虽然在急性心理健康环境中进行了广泛的研究,但它们在住院患者饮食失调服务中的应用仍未得到充分探索,尽管有证据表明患病率很高。除了这些正式的限制性干预措施外,饮食失调住院病房通常采用结构化的行为规则作为营养康复计划的一部分,包括强制休息时间、监督用餐、锁上浴室以及限制液体或活动。按照五步框架实施了范围审查方法。检索了四个数据库(CINAHL、MEDLINE、Embase和PsycInfo)。分析涉及到与框架相一致的数字和叙事综合。纳入了36项研究。大多数来自英国,关注神经性厌食症,并采用定量设计,在儿童和青少年住院患者中进行了大量研究。常见的RPs包括约束下的鼻胃管喂养、非自愿入院和身体约束。患病率差异很大,一小部分患者占大多数RP发作。RPs主要用于应对医疗或营养风险,而不是攻击行为,从而将其与急性精神病情况区分开来。关于体重恢复、住院时间和死亡率等结果的证据不一致,患者和工作人员经常将rp描述为痛苦、强制性和潜在的创伤性。研究结果强调了在进食障碍情况下使用RP的独特性质,以及需要根据具体情况制定政策、道德指导和干预策略,以尽量减少伤害,同时确保患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Eating Disorders
Eating Disorders PSYCHIATRY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Eating Disorders is contemporary and wide ranging, and takes a fundamentally practical, humanistic, compassionate view of clients and their presenting problems. You’ll find a multidisciplinary perspective on clinical issues and prevention research that considers the essential cultural, social, familial, and personal elements that not only foster eating-related problems, but also furnish clues that facilitate the most effective possible therapies and treatment approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书