Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: the COMPARE systematic mapping review

J. Baker, Kathryn Berzins, K. Canvin, Iris Benson, I. Kellar, Judy M. Wright, R. R. Lopez, J. Duxbury, T. Kendall, D. Stewart
{"title":"Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: the COMPARE systematic mapping review","authors":"J. Baker, Kathryn Berzins, K. Canvin, Iris Benson, I. Kellar, Judy M. Wright, R. R. Lopez, J. Duxbury, T. Kendall, D. Stewart","doi":"10.3310/HSDR09050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study aimed to provide a mapping review of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings; classify intervention components using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; explore evidence of behaviour change techniques and interventions; and identify the behaviour change techniques that show most effectiveness and those that require further testing.Incidents involving violence and aggression occur frequently in adult mental health inpatient settings. They often result in restrictive practices such as restraint and seclusion. These practices carry significant risks, including physical and psychological harm to service users and staff, and costs to the NHS. A number of interventions aim to reduce the use of restrictive practices by using behaviour change techniques to modify practice. Some interventions have been evaluated, but effectiveness research is hampered by limited attention to the specific components. The behaviour change technique taxonomy provides a common language with which to specify intervention content.Systematic mapping study and analysis.English-language health and social care research databases, and grey literature, including social media. The databases searched included British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, HTA Canadian and International, Ovid MEDLINE®, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PsycInfo®and PubMed. Databases were searched from 1999 to 2019.Broad literature search; identification, description and classification of interventions using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; and quality appraisal of reports. Records of interventions to reduce any form of restrictive practice used with adults in mental health services were retrieved and subject to scrutiny of content, to identify interventions; quality appraisal, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; and data extraction, regarding whether participants were staff or service users, number of participants, study setting, intervention type, procedures and fidelity. The resulting data set for extraction was guided by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research, Cochrane and theory coding scheme recommendations. The behaviour change technique taxonomy was applied systematically to each identified intervention. Intervention data were examined for overarching patterns, range and frequency. Overall percentages of behaviour change techniques by behaviour change technique cluster were reported. Procedures used within interventions, for example staff training, were described using the behaviour change technique taxonomy.The final data set comprised 221 records reporting 150 interventions, 109 of which had been evaluated. The most common evaluation approach was a non-randomised design. There were six randomised controlled trials. Behaviour change techniques from 14 out of a possible 16 clusters were detected. Behaviour change techniques found in the interventions were most likely to be those that demonstrated statistically significant effects. The most common intervention target was seclusion and restraint reduction. The most common strategy was staff training. Over two-thirds of the behaviour change techniques mapped onto four clusters, that is ‘goals and planning’, ‘antecedents’, ‘shaping knowledge’ and ‘feedback and monitoring’. The number of behaviour change techniques identified per intervention ranged from 1 to 33 (mean 8 techniques).Many interventions were poorly described and might have contained additional behaviour change techniques that were not detected. The finding that the evidence was weak restricted the study’s scope for examining behaviour change technique effectiveness. The literature search was restricted to English-language records.Studies on interventions to reduce restrictive practices appear to be diverse and poor. Interventions tend to contain multiple procedures delivered in multiple ways.Prior to future commissioning decisions, further research to enhance the evidence base could help address the urgent need for effective strategies. Testing individual procedures, for example, audit and feedback, could ascertain which are the most effective intervention components. Separate testing of individual components could improve understanding of content and delivery.The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086985.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR09050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

The study aimed to provide a mapping review of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings; classify intervention components using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; explore evidence of behaviour change techniques and interventions; and identify the behaviour change techniques that show most effectiveness and those that require further testing.Incidents involving violence and aggression occur frequently in adult mental health inpatient settings. They often result in restrictive practices such as restraint and seclusion. These practices carry significant risks, including physical and psychological harm to service users and staff, and costs to the NHS. A number of interventions aim to reduce the use of restrictive practices by using behaviour change techniques to modify practice. Some interventions have been evaluated, but effectiveness research is hampered by limited attention to the specific components. The behaviour change technique taxonomy provides a common language with which to specify intervention content.Systematic mapping study and analysis.English-language health and social care research databases, and grey literature, including social media. The databases searched included British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, HTA Canadian and International, Ovid MEDLINE®, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PsycInfo®and PubMed. Databases were searched from 1999 to 2019.Broad literature search; identification, description and classification of interventions using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; and quality appraisal of reports. Records of interventions to reduce any form of restrictive practice used with adults in mental health services were retrieved and subject to scrutiny of content, to identify interventions; quality appraisal, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; and data extraction, regarding whether participants were staff or service users, number of participants, study setting, intervention type, procedures and fidelity. The resulting data set for extraction was guided by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research, Cochrane and theory coding scheme recommendations. The behaviour change technique taxonomy was applied systematically to each identified intervention. Intervention data were examined for overarching patterns, range and frequency. Overall percentages of behaviour change techniques by behaviour change technique cluster were reported. Procedures used within interventions, for example staff training, were described using the behaviour change technique taxonomy.The final data set comprised 221 records reporting 150 interventions, 109 of which had been evaluated. The most common evaluation approach was a non-randomised design. There were six randomised controlled trials. Behaviour change techniques from 14 out of a possible 16 clusters were detected. Behaviour change techniques found in the interventions were most likely to be those that demonstrated statistically significant effects. The most common intervention target was seclusion and restraint reduction. The most common strategy was staff training. Over two-thirds of the behaviour change techniques mapped onto four clusters, that is ‘goals and planning’, ‘antecedents’, ‘shaping knowledge’ and ‘feedback and monitoring’. The number of behaviour change techniques identified per intervention ranged from 1 to 33 (mean 8 techniques).Many interventions were poorly described and might have contained additional behaviour change techniques that were not detected. The finding that the evidence was weak restricted the study’s scope for examining behaviour change technique effectiveness. The literature search was restricted to English-language records.Studies on interventions to reduce restrictive practices appear to be diverse and poor. Interventions tend to contain multiple procedures delivered in multiple ways.Prior to future commissioning decisions, further research to enhance the evidence base could help address the urgent need for effective strategies. Testing individual procedures, for example, audit and feedback, could ascertain which are the most effective intervention components. Separate testing of individual components could improve understanding of content and delivery.The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086985.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
非药物干预以减少成人精神卫生住院设置中的限制性做法:比较系统制图回顾
该研究旨在提供非药物干预措施的绘图审查,以减少成人精神卫生住院设置的限制性做法;使用行为改变技术分类法对干预成分进行分类;探索行为改变技术和干预措施的证据;并确定最有效的行为改变技术和需要进一步测试的技术。涉及暴力和侵略的事件在成人精神卫生住院环境中经常发生。它们往往导致约束和隔离等限制性做法。这些做法存在重大风险,包括对服务使用者和工作人员造成身体和心理伤害,并给NHS带来成本。一些干预措施旨在通过使用行为改变技术来修改做法,减少限制性做法的使用。一些干预措施已经得到了评估,但由于对具体成分的关注有限,有效性研究受到了阻碍。行为改变技术分类法提供了一种通用语言,用于指定干预内容。系统的制图研究与分析。英语健康和社会保健研究数据库,以及灰色文献,包括社交媒体。检索的数据库包括英国护理索引(BNI)、护理及相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CCRCT)、Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR)、疗效评价摘要数据库(DARE)、EMBASE、卫生技术评估(HTA)数据库、加拿大和国际HTA数据库、Ovid MEDLINE®、NHS经济评价数据库(NHS EED)、PsycInfo®和PubMed。数据库检索时间为1999年至2019年。广泛的文献检索;使用行为改变技术分类法确定、描述和分类干预措施;和质量评估报告。检索了旨在减少在精神卫生服务中对成年人使用的任何形式的限制性做法的干预措施记录,并对其内容进行了审查,以确定干预措施;质量评估,使用混合方法评估工具;数据提取,关于参与者是工作人员还是服务用户,参与者人数,研究设置,干预类型,程序和保真度。提取的结果数据集由干预发展和评估研究工作组、Cochrane和理论编码方案建议指导。行为改变技术分类法被系统地应用于每一个确定的干预措施。检查干预数据的总体模式、范围和频率。按行为改变技术集群报告了行为改变技术的总体百分比。使用行为改变技术分类法描述了干预措施中使用的程序,例如工作人员培训。最终数据集包括221项记录,报告了150项干预措施,其中109项已进行了评估。最常见的评估方法是非随机设计。共有6个随机对照试验。在可能的16个集群中,从14个集群中检测到行为改变技术。在干预措施中发现的行为改变技术最有可能是那些显示出统计显著效果的技术。最常见的干预目标是隔离和减少约束。最常见的策略是员工培训。超过三分之二的行为改变技术被归类为四类,即“目标和计划”、“前因”、“形成知识”和“反馈和监控”。每次干预确定的行为改变技术数量从1到33不等(平均8种技术)。许多干预措施描述不清,可能包含未被发现的其他行为改变技术。证据不足的发现限制了该研究检查行为改变技术有效性的范围。文献检索仅限于英语记录。关于减少限制性做法的干预措施的研究似乎是多种多样和贫乏的。干预措施往往包含以多种方式提供的多种程序。在未来的委托决策之前,进一步研究以增强证据基础可以帮助解决对有效战略的迫切需求。测试个别程序,例如审计和反馈,可以确定哪些是最有效的干预组成部分。对单个组件进行单独测试可以提高对内容和交付的理解。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42018086985。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究方案资助,将全文发表在《卫生服务和交付研究》上;第九卷,第五期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信