The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Exploring experiences of restrictive practices within inpatient mental healthcare from the perspectives of patients and staff
Abstract
Objective : To explore experiences of restrictive practices from the perspectives of acute care inpatients and staff.Method : Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken exploring participants' experiences deemed to involve restrictive practices. Additionally, a period of observational fieldwork was undertaken. Nine inpatient participants and eight staff member participants were recruited across two adult psychiatric wards. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.Results : Analysis of data from the inpatient participants identified three superordinate themes including 'Overpowered by staff', 'Making sense of restrictive practices' and 'Surviving restrictive practices'. Analysis of data from staff member participants identified three superordinate themes including 'Legitimate practices', 'Impact' and 'Strategies to avoid restrictive practices'. Our analysis found a key discrepancy in how alternatives to restrictive practices were experienced by patients, where staff felt they were able to use 'negotiation' with patients, whereas patients experienced these approaches as coercive.Conclusion : Whilst some positive experiences are noted by patients and staff, restrictive practices continue to be experienced negatively by both patients and staff, supporting the current focus on reducing the use of restrictive practices in the acute care setting. The use of de-escalation and other alternative interventions to restrictive practices are experienced differently by patients and staff and further research is required to examine the use of these alternative strategies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Patients described restrictions such as prohibitions on smoking, coffee, or going outside [102,142], the inability to use a phone [152], and needing staff permission for basic needs [114,141] as profound losses of control.”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [142]
In the citing paper
“it was the rigid rules and routines that were most consistently reported as restrictive in the literature [51,89,102,104,114,141,142,145,149,152,153,161].”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [142]
In the citing paper
“For instance, these studies shed light on how structural factors such as rigid ward rules, locked units, lack of privacy, resource scarcity, and dehumanizing practices deeply influence individuals’ perceptions of coercion [51,89,102,104,114,141,142,145,149,152,153,161].”
From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [142]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Clinical Nursing Research, 7, 853
- Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 6, 402
- International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 7, 1162
- Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 4, 275
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5, 236
- Nurse Researcher, 2, 47
- BJ Psych International, 4, 59
- Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 25
- Social Science & Medicine, 3, 1565
- Psychosis, 3, 93
- Psychiatric Services, 2, 62
- Psychiatric Services, 8, 1127
- International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 7, 1511
- Nursing & Health Sciences, 3, 325
- Mental Health Review Journal, 2, 1
- Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1, 370
- International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 7, 9
- Clinical Nursing Research, 9, 479
- The Sociological Review Monographs, 7, 444
- Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 9, 191
- Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4, 16
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review
Lessard-Deschênes, C., Pariseau-Legault, P., Billé, V., Sergerie-Richard, S., Hudson, E., Silva, B., Drouin, J.-S., Désilets, M., & Goulet, M.-H. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13151868 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Bendall, C., Williams, C., & Huddy, V.
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care
- Published
- 2022-04-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-29
- ISSN
- 1742-6464 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4285268075
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- restrictive practices, acute psychiatric wards, patient experience, employee experience, de-escalation, coercion, mental health professionals
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploring experiences of restrictive practices within inpatient mental healthcare from the perspectives of patients and staff. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.20299/jpi.2022.005
- The paper
- Bendall, C., Williams, C., & Huddy, V. (2022). Exploring experiences of restrictive practices within inpatient mental healthcare from the perspectives of patients and staff. Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care. https://doi.org/10.20299/jpi.2022.005