Iatrogenic harm from restrictive interventions in mental healthcare: a human rights perspective

The use of restrictive interventions and practice by nurses in mental healthcare has the potential to cause varying levels of iatrogenic harm to patients. Restrictive interventions include physical and mechanical restraint, seclusion and enforced administration of medicines, while restrictive practice includes coercion, deprivation of liberty and reduced autonomy. The severity of physical, psychological and psychosocial harms experienced by patients subjected to these restrictions can be wide ranging. In addition, the use of these interventions and practices gives rise to ethical and moral contradictions, even when they are used legally and are clinically acceptable. This article explores the factors involved in restrictive interventions and practice such as culture, leadership, staffing levels, training, organisational policy and quality of care provision. The author also examines the implications for patients of being subjected to such interventions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Mental Health Practice
Published
2026-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7748/mhp.2026.e1772
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

Iatrogenic harm from restrictive interventions in mental healthcare: a human rights perspective

Peter Stevens
Mental Health Practice
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
article

Iatrogenic harm from restrictive interventions in mental healthcare: a human rights perspective

Peter Stevens
article en

Abstract

The use of restrictive interventions and practice by nurses in mental healthcare has the potential to cause varying levels of iatrogenic harm to patients. Restrictive interventions include physical and mechanical restraint, seclusion and enforced administration of medicines, while restrictive practice includes coercion, deprivation of liberty and reduced autonomy. The severity of physical, psychological and psychosocial harms experienced by patients subjected to these restrictions can be wide ranging. In addition, the use of these interventions and practices gives rise to ethical and moral contradictions, even when they are used legally and are clinically acceptable. This article explores the factors involved in restrictive interventions and practice such as culture, leadership, staffing levels, training, organisational policy and quality of care provision. The author also examines the implications for patients of being subjected to such interventions.

Mental Health Practice
Centre for Clinical Interventions (AU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
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.