Variables Associated With the Subjective Experience of Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Inpatients: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This systematic review presents evidence regarding factors that may influence the patient’s subjective experience of an episode of mechanical restraint, seclusion, or forced administration of medication. Method: Two authors searched CINAHL, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Psych-Info, considering published studies between 1 January 1992 and 1 February 2016. Based on the inclusion criteria and methodological quality, 34 studies were selected, reporting a total sample of 1,869 participants. Results: The results showed that the provision of information, contact and interaction with staff, and adequate communication with professionals are factors that influence the subjective experience of these measures. Humane treatment, respect, and staff support are also associated with a better experience, and debriefing is an important procedure/technique to reduce the emotional impact of these measures. Likewise, the quality of the working and physical environment and some individual and treatment variables were related to the experience of these measures. There are different results in relation to the most frequently associated experiences and, despite some data that indicate positive experiences, the evidence shows such experiences to be predominantly negative and frequently with adverse consequences. It seems that patients find forced medication and seclusion to be more tolerable than mechanical restraint and combined measures. Conclusions: It appears that the role of the staff and the environmental conditions, which are potentially modifiable, affect the subjective experience of these measures. There was considerable heterogeneity among studies in terms of coercive measures experienced by participants and study designs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 73
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Roberts D, Crompton D, Milligan E, et al. Reflection on the use of seclusion. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2009;47(10): 25-31.
- Guzman-Parra J, Aguilera Serrano C, Garcı ´a-Sa ´nchez JA, et al. Effectiveness of a multimodal intervention program for restraint prevention in an acute Spanish psychiatric ward. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2016;22(3):233-241.
- Lebel JL, Duxbury JA, Putkonen A. Multinational experience in reducing restraint. J Psychosoc Nurs. 2014;52(11):22-29.
- Glover RW. Reducing the use of seclusion and restraint: a NASMHPD priority. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(9):1141-1142.
- Ezeobele IE, Malecha AT, Mock A, et al. Patients' lived seclu- sion experience in acute psychiatric hospital in the United States: a qualitative study. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014;21(4):303-312.
- Ntsaba GM, Havenga Y. Psychiatric in-patients' experience of being secluded in a specific hospital in Lesotho. Heal SA Gesondheid. 2008;12(4):3-12.
- Cummings KS, Grandfield SA, Coldwell CM. Caring with comfort rooms. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010; 48(6):26-30.
- Authors
- Aguilera-Serrano, C., Guzman-Parra, J., Garcia-Sanchez, J. A., Moreno-Küstner, B., & Mayoral-Cleries, F.
- Affiliations
- Department of Mental Health, University General Hospital of Malaga, Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA), Malaga, Spain
- University of Málaga, Malaga, Spain
- Venue
- The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-10-25
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-144
- ISSN
- 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
- 1497-0015
- PMC
- PMC5788134
- OpenAlex
- W2766872659
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- coercive measures, mechanical restraint, seclusion, subjective experience, psychiatric inpatients, patient information, staff-patient communication, humane treatment, staff support, debriefing, work environment, physical environment, tolerability
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Coercion, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Inpatients, Patient Isolation, Restraint, Physical, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Mentally Ill Persons
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
