Co‐Designing Case Scenarios and Survey Strategies to Examine the Classification and Reporting of Restrictive Care Practices in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Perspectives From International Stakeholders

There is a global initiative to reduce the use of restrictive care practices in mental health settings. Variations in the reported rates across regions complicate the understanding of their use and tracking trends over time. However, it remains unclear whether these discrepancies reflect real differences in the implementation of these practices or are sourced from inconsistencies in incident classification and reporting methods. This study employed a co-design approach to identify contexts that would influence the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The research involved 29 mental health stakeholders, including 22 professional experts from 13 countries across Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and Australasia and seven service users and family carers from Australia. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, snowball sampling and social media outreach. Six web-based panel meetings, each lasting 90-120 minnutes were held. These discussions focused on exploring various contexts that might lead to uncertainty among professionals when classifying and reporting actions whether or not as restrictive care practices. A final list of 23 contexts was identified and considered for the development of 81 case scenario items. Finally, all the 29 panel members selected 44 from 81 case scenarios for inclusion in an upcoming international survey to examine variations in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The findings from this co-design work emphasise the involvement of a wide range of factors and contexts in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices that may contribute to the observed variations in the in the reported rates of these practices. The case scenarios developed in this study will support future research and serve educational purposes, illustrating real-life situations in the mental healthcare context.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
Published
2024-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13479
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.40

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Co‐Designing Case Scenarios and Survey Strategies to Examine the Classification and Reporting of Restrictive Care Practices in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Perspectives From International Stakeholders

Den‐Ching A. Lee, Maria Bakola, Eimear Muir‐Cochrane, Marie‐Hélène Goulet et al.
4 citations
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
Mental Health and Patient Involvement
3.40
article

Co‐Designing Case Scenarios and Survey Strategies to Examine the Classification and Reporting of Restrictive Care Practices in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Perspectives From International Stakeholders

Den‐Ching A. Lee, Maria Bakola, Eimear Muir‐Cochrane, Marie‐Hélène Goulet, Vincent S. Staggs, Deborah Oyine Aluh, Yoav Kohn, Giles Newton‐Howes, Emer Diviney, Kathleen De Cuyper, Eleni Jelastopulu, Birhanie Mekuriaw, Jacqueline Sin, Tim Opgenhaffen, Guru S. Gowda, Justus Uchenna Onu, Terry Peter Haines, Kim J. Masters, Melissa Petrakis, Tonje Lossius Husum, Zelalem Belayneh, Yana Canteloupe
article en
4 citations

Abstract

There is a global initiative to reduce the use of restrictive care practices in mental health settings. Variations in the reported rates across regions complicate the understanding of their use and tracking trends over time. However, it remains unclear whether these discrepancies reflect real differences in the implementation of these practices or are sourced from inconsistencies in incident classification and reporting methods. This study employed a co-design approach to identify contexts that would influence the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The research involved 29 mental health stakeholders, including 22 professional experts from 13 countries across Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and Australasia and seven service users and family carers from Australia. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, snowball sampling and social media outreach. Six web-based panel meetings, each lasting 90-120 minnutes were held. These discussions focused on exploring various contexts that might lead to uncertainty among professionals when classifying and reporting actions whether or not as restrictive care practices. A final list of 23 contexts was identified and considered for the development of 81 case scenario items. Finally, all the 29 panel members selected 44 from 81 case scenarios for inclusion in an upcoming international survey to examine variations in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The findings from this co-design work emphasise the involvement of a wide range of factors and contexts in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices that may contribute to the observed variations in the in the reported rates of these practices. The case scenarios developed in this study will support future research and serve educational purposes, illustrating real-life situations in the mental healthcare context.

International Journal of Mental Health NursingVol. 34(1)
University of Technology Sydney (AU), University of Nigeria (NG), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE), University of Lisbon (PT), Medical University of South Carolina (US), St George's, University of London (GB), Flinders University (AU), University of Patras (GR), OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO), Nnamdi Azikiwe University (NG), Federal Neuro Psychiatric Hospital (NG), Jerusalem Mental Health Center (IL), Frankston Hospital (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), Eastern Health (AU), Peninsula Health (AU), Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec (CA), Dilla University (ET), City St George's, University of London (GB), Monash University (AU), National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IN), Université de Montréal (CA), University of Otago (NZ), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT), KU Leuven (BE)
Monash University
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Mental Health and Patient Involvement
3.40
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.