成人住院精神卫生服务中服务使用者对限制性做法的体验。质性研究的系统回顾与元人种志。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Bethany Griffin, John Baker, Katharina Sophie Vogt, Jessica Rich, Judith Johnson
{"title":"成人住院精神卫生服务中服务使用者对限制性做法的体验。质性研究的系统回顾与元人种志。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:全球都在关注减少精神卫生保健中的限制性做法。然而,我们对服务用户通常如何经历限制性做法知之甚少。目的:探讨和综合成人住院患者精神卫生机构限制性做法的经验,并报告文献的深度和广度。方法。检索CINAHL、PsycINFO、Scopus、MEDLINE和Embase。定性研究探讨了限制性实践的服务用户体验,并使用元民族志综合方法进行了分析。结果:共纳入论文27篇。限制性做法对服务使用者来说是负面的,当治疗关系薄弱,缺乏沟通时,他们会感到受到惩罚和无能为力。第三级结构是:(1)反治疗和非人性化,(2)恶性循环,(3)滥用权力,(4)支持和沟通的关键作用(副主题:(i)沟通的影响,(ii)支持和沟通如何将负面影响最小化)。结论:与会者建议,增加支持性沟通和详细说明使用限制性做法的决策,将减少强迫感,增加对员工的信任。未来对限制性实践经验的研究应着眼于捕捉非正式限制性实践的经验,如锁上门和强制性语言。Prsima/prospero声明:该审查已按照系统审查和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA;参见补充材料表S1)和元人种学报告指南(浮现;参见补充材料表S2)。该协议已在PROSPERO上注册(注册号:CRD42023399272;URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023399272)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Service users' experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies.

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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Mental Health
Journal of Mental Health PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
117
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.
×
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