Service users’ experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

There is a focus globally on reducing restrictive practices in mental healthcare. However, we know little about how service users experience restrictive practices generally. 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. 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). 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. 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).

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29083080
Primary Topic
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Service users’ experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

Figshare
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
article

Service users’ experiences of restrictive practices in adult inpatient mental health services. A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

article en

Abstract

There is a focus globally on reducing restrictive practices in mental healthcare. However, we know little about how service users experience restrictive practices generally. 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. 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). 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. 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).

Figshare
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
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.