共同设计案例场景和调查策略,以检查成人精神卫生住院环境中限制性护理实践的分类和报告:来自国际利益相关者的观点。

International journal of mental health nursing Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1111/inm.13479
Zelalem Belayneh, Den-Ching A Lee, Terry P Haines, Deborah Oyine Aluh, Justus Uchenna Onu, Giles Newton-Howes, Kim Masters, Yoav Kohn, Jacqueline Sin, Marie-Hélène Goulet, Tonje Lossius Husum, Eleni Jelastopulu, Maria Bakola, Tim Opgenhaffen, Guru S Gowda, Birhanie Mekuriaw, Kathleen De Cuyper, Eimear Muir-Cochrane, Yana Canteloupe, Emer Diviney, Vincent S Staggs, Melissa Petrakis
{"title":"共同设计案例场景和调查策略,以检查成人精神卫生住院环境中限制性护理实践的分类和报告:来自国际利益相关者的观点。","authors":"Zelalem Belayneh, Den-Ching A Lee, Terry P Haines, Deborah Oyine Aluh, Justus Uchenna Onu, Giles Newton-Howes, Kim Masters, Yoav Kohn, Jacqueline Sin, Marie-Hélène Goulet, Tonje Lossius Husum, Eleni Jelastopulu, Maria Bakola, Tim Opgenhaffen, Guru S Gowda, Birhanie Mekuriaw, Kathleen De Cuyper, Eimear Muir-Cochrane, Yana Canteloupe, Emer Diviney, Vincent S Staggs, Melissa Petrakis","doi":"10.1111/inm.13479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94051,"journal":{"name":"International journal of mental health nursing","volume":" ","pages":"e13479"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Zelalem Belayneh, Den-Ching A Lee, Terry P Haines, Deborah Oyine Aluh, Justus Uchenna Onu, Giles Newton-Howes, Kim Masters, Yoav Kohn, Jacqueline Sin, Marie-Hélène Goulet, Tonje Lossius Husum, Eleni Jelastopulu, Maria Bakola, Tim Opgenhaffen, Guru S Gowda, Birhanie Mekuriaw, Kathleen De Cuyper, Eimear Muir-Cochrane, Yana Canteloupe, Emer Diviney, Vincent S Staggs, Melissa Petrakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/inm.13479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of mental health nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e13479\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of mental health nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13479\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of mental health nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有一项减少在精神卫生机构使用限制性护理做法的全球倡议。各区域报告的比率的差异使人们对其使用情况的理解和对长期趋势的跟踪复杂化。然而,尚不清楚这些差异是否反映了这些做法实施的实际差异,还是源于事件分类和报告方法的不一致。本研究采用共同设计方法来确定可能影响限制性护理实践分类和报告的环境。这项研究涉及29名心理健康利益相关者,其中包括来自欧洲、非洲、北美、亚洲和大洋洲13个国家的22名专业专家,以及来自澳大利亚的7名服务使用者和家庭照顾者。招聘是通过电子邮件邀请、滚雪球抽样和社交媒体宣传进行的。举行了六次网络小组会议,每次会议持续90-120分钟。这些讨论的重点是探索各种可能导致专业人员在分类和报告行为时不确定的情况,无论是否为限制性护理实践。确定并审议了23种情况的最后清单,以编制81个情景项目。最后,所有29名小组成员从81个案例中选出44个纳入即将进行的国际调查,以检查限制性护理实践分类和报告的差异。这项共同设计工作的发现强调了限制性护理实践分类和报告中涉及的广泛因素和背景,这些因素和背景可能导致这些实践报告率的观察变化。在本研究中发展的案例场景将支持未来的研究,并服务于教育目的,说明现实生活中的精神卫生保健情境。
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
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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Conceptual Framework to Improve Resilience Among Undergraduate First-Year Nursing Students: A Mixed-Methods Study. How Do People With Schizophrenia Manage Their Daily Life? A Qualitative Study. The Patient's Role Development in the Process of Participating in Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: From Passive Attendees to Active Members or Dropouts. Building the Community Mental Health Nursing Workforce Through a Supported Transition Programme: An Evaluation of a Competency Framework Implementation. Burnout Among Primary Healthcare Nurses: A Study of Association With Depression, Anxiety and Self-Efficacy.
×
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