消除急性成人心理健康护理服务中的限制性做法:生活经验文献的定性证据综述。

IF 4.1 Q1 PSYCHIATRY SSM. Mental health Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100305
S.L. Bennetts , G. Pepin , S. Moylan , R. Carolin , J.J. Lucas
{"title":"消除急性成人心理健康护理服务中的限制性做法:生活经验文献的定性证据综述。","authors":"S.L. Bennetts ,&nbsp;G. Pepin ,&nbsp;S. Moylan ,&nbsp;R. Carolin ,&nbsp;J.J. Lucas","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The calls to eliminate restrictive practices (e.g., seclusion and physical restraint) from mental health care services have been gaining momentum over time and have been one of the many issues at the forefront of international mental health care systems. Whilst it is known that restrictive practices are often harmful and traumatic for the mental health service user, there is a lack of synthesis of the factors that are influencing restrictive practices’ ultimate reduction and elimination from the perspective of mental health service users and practitioners. The aim of this research was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis of the literature regarding the perceptions and experiences of mental health service users and practitioners about restrictive practices in mental health care services. A systematic search and inclusion strategy identified 44 relevant articles for review. Inductive thematic synthesis resulted in five themes across the articles: (1) Meaning and emotional experience, (2) Re-traumatisation and dehumanisation, (3) Professional competencies and varying experiences, (4) Balancing safety versus care, and (5) Alternatives to restrictive practices. Discussion of these themes highlighted the many layered and often uncomfortable nature of restrictive practices which can pervade mental health facilities across the world.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74861,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Mental health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000100/pdfft?md5=d2274624cd7df0722a21b7ba33bb7e80&pid=1-s2.0-S2666560324000100-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elimination of restrictive practices from acute adult mental health care services: A qualitative evidence synthesis of the lived experience literature.\",\"authors\":\"S.L. Bennetts ,&nbsp;G. Pepin ,&nbsp;S. Moylan ,&nbsp;R. Carolin ,&nbsp;J.J. Lucas\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The calls to eliminate restrictive practices (e.g., seclusion and physical restraint) from mental health care services have been gaining momentum over time and have been one of the many issues at the forefront of international mental health care systems. Whilst it is known that restrictive practices are often harmful and traumatic for the mental health service user, there is a lack of synthesis of the factors that are influencing restrictive practices’ ultimate reduction and elimination from the perspective of mental health service users and practitioners. The aim of this research was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis of the literature regarding the perceptions and experiences of mental health service users and practitioners about restrictive practices in mental health care services. A systematic search and inclusion strategy identified 44 relevant articles for review. Inductive thematic synthesis resulted in five themes across the articles: (1) Meaning and emotional experience, (2) Re-traumatisation and dehumanisation, (3) Professional competencies and varying experiences, (4) Balancing safety versus care, and (5) Alternatives to restrictive practices. Discussion of these themes highlighted the many layered and often uncomfortable nature of restrictive practices which can pervade mental health facilities across the world.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SSM. Mental health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000100/pdfft?md5=d2274624cd7df0722a21b7ba33bb7e80&pid=1-s2.0-S2666560324000100-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SSM. Mental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着时间的推移,从心理健康护理服务中消除限制性做法(如隔离和身体束缚)的呼声日益高涨,并已成为国际心理健康护理系统最关注的众多问题之一。众所周知,限制性措施往往会对精神健康服务使用者造成伤害和创伤,但从精神健康服务使用者和从业人员的角度来看,目前还缺乏对影响限制性措施最终减少和消除的因素的综合研究。本研究的目的是对有关精神健康服务使用者和从业人员对精神健康护理服务中限制性措施的看法和体验的文献进行定性证据综述。通过系统性的搜索和纳入策略,确定了 44 篇相关文章供查阅。通过归纳式主题综合,在所有文章中形成了五个主题:(1)意义和情感体验,(2)再创伤和非人化,(3)专业能力和不同的体验,(4)安全和护理之间的平衡,以及(5)限制性实践的替代方案。对这些主题的讨论凸显了限制性实践的多层次性,而且往往让人感到不舒服,这些限制性实践可能遍布世界各地的心理健康机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Elimination of restrictive practices from acute adult mental health care services: A qualitative evidence synthesis of the lived experience literature.

The calls to eliminate restrictive practices (e.g., seclusion and physical restraint) from mental health care services have been gaining momentum over time and have been one of the many issues at the forefront of international mental health care systems. Whilst it is known that restrictive practices are often harmful and traumatic for the mental health service user, there is a lack of synthesis of the factors that are influencing restrictive practices’ ultimate reduction and elimination from the perspective of mental health service users and practitioners. The aim of this research was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis of the literature regarding the perceptions and experiences of mental health service users and practitioners about restrictive practices in mental health care services. A systematic search and inclusion strategy identified 44 relevant articles for review. Inductive thematic synthesis resulted in five themes across the articles: (1) Meaning and emotional experience, (2) Re-traumatisation and dehumanisation, (3) Professional competencies and varying experiences, (4) Balancing safety versus care, and (5) Alternatives to restrictive practices. Discussion of these themes highlighted the many layered and often uncomfortable nature of restrictive practices which can pervade mental health facilities across the world.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SSM. Mental health
SSM. Mental health Social Psychology, Health
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
118 days
期刊最新文献
State-level variation in the prevalence of child psychopathology symptoms in the US: Results from the ABCD study Perceptions around occupational mental well-being of community health workers and an intervention package for its promotion: A mixed-methods study in rural Chiapas, Mexico The ties that bind: Understanding the mental health consequences of the Windrush Scandal and hostile immigration policies on survivors in the UK Barriers and enablers to a coordinated MHPSS response in Lebanon: A case study of the MHPSS Taskforce Understanding depression and the PHQ-9 items among people living with HIV: A multiple methods qualitative study in Yaoundé, Cameroon
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1