Mental Health Nurses' Perceived Appropriateness of Coercive Measures and Security Technologies in Psychiatric Settings: A National Cross‐Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION: Psychiatric settings are high-risk environments for violence. Coercive measures (CMs) and security technologies (STs) can be used to ensure safety. However, limited evidence exists on how Italian mental health nurses (MHNs) perceive the appropriateness of such practices and the influencing factors. This study aimed to fill this gap. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: An online survey collected sociodemographic data and validated measures of depression, anxiety, stress, stigma toward mental illness, and humanization of care. The perceived appropriateness of various CMs and STs was rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a validated item set. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and multilevel mixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 707 MHNs participated in the study. CMs were considered moderately appropriate (mean = 3.56 ± 0.92), with pharmacological restraint and locked-door policies rated as more appropriate than physical restraint. STs were evaluated better (mean = 3.74 ± 0.95), with alarms and closed-circuit television judged more appropriate than body-worn cameras and metal detectors. CMs were considered less appropriate by non-believers (p = 0.009), head nurses (p < 0.001), and those in non-acute settings (p = 0.004), and more appropriate by those in Central Italy (p = 0.036), on daytime shifts (p = 0.042), and with higher stigma (p = 0.012). STs were considered less appropriate by males (p = 0.004), head nurses (p = 0.040), and more experienced MHNs (p < 0.001), and more appropriate by those in Southern Italy (p < 0.001) and in non-acute settings (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MHNs consider CMs and STs moderately appropriate. Perceptions are influenced by both individual and contextual factors. Targeted training, anti-stigma education, and inclusive policies are needed to ensure ethical and evidence-based safety practices in psychiatric care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Targeted education and training in mental health nursing, both continuing and post-graduate, are essential to support cultural change among MHNs and ensure the appropriate use of CMs and STs. Integrating anti-stigma initiatives and involving MHNs in policy development can strengthen clinical decision-making and foster safer, more ethical, and person-centred psychiatric care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.70097
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

Mental Health Nurses' Perceived Appropriateness of Coercive Measures and Security Technologies in Psychiatric Settings: A National Cross‐Sectional Study

Stefano Bambi, Yari Longobucco, Alessandro Stievano, Roberto Latina et al.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
article

Mental Health Nurses' Perceived Appropriateness of Coercive Measures and Security Technologies in Psychiatric Settings: A National Cross‐Sectional Study

Stefano Bambi, Yari Longobucco, Alessandro Stievano, Roberto Latina, Giuliano Anastasi
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Psychiatric settings are high-risk environments for violence. Coercive measures (CMs) and security technologies (STs) can be used to ensure safety. However, limited evidence exists on how Italian mental health nurses (MHNs) perceive the appropriateness of such practices and the influencing factors. This study aimed to fill this gap. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: An online survey collected sociodemographic data and validated measures of depression, anxiety, stress, stigma toward mental illness, and humanization of care. The perceived appropriateness of various CMs and STs was rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a validated item set. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and multilevel mixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 707 MHNs participated in the study. CMs were considered moderately appropriate (mean = 3.56 ± 0.92), with pharmacological restraint and locked-door policies rated as more appropriate than physical restraint. STs were evaluated better (mean = 3.74 ± 0.95), with alarms and closed-circuit television judged more appropriate than body-worn cameras and metal detectors. CMs were considered less appropriate by non-believers (p = 0.009), head nurses (p < 0.001), and those in non-acute settings (p = 0.004), and more appropriate by those in Central Italy (p = 0.036), on daytime shifts (p = 0.042), and with higher stigma (p = 0.012). STs were considered less appropriate by males (p = 0.004), head nurses (p = 0.040), and more experienced MHNs (p < 0.001), and more appropriate by those in Southern Italy (p < 0.001) and in non-acute settings (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MHNs consider CMs and STs moderately appropriate. Perceptions are influenced by both individual and contextual factors. Targeted training, anti-stigma education, and inclusive policies are needed to ensure ethical and evidence-based safety practices in psychiatric care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Targeted education and training in mental health nursing, both continuing and post-graduate, are essential to support cultural change among MHNs and ensure the appropriate use of CMs and STs. Integrating anti-stigma initiatives and involving MHNs in policy development can strengthen clinical decision-making and foster safer, more ethical, and person-centred psychiatric care.

Journal of Nursing ScholarshipVol. 58(3)
University of Messina (IT), Università degli Studi di Enna Kore (IT), Department of Health (ES), Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi (IT), University of Florence (IT), University of Palermo (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
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.