在工作人员和服务使用者对隔离的看法中,以康复为导向的做法原则是否明显?

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Mental Health Review Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-16 DOI:10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009
Antaine Stíobhairt, David Staunton, S. Guerin
{"title":"在工作人员和服务使用者对隔离的看法中,以康复为导向的做法原则是否明显?","authors":"Antaine Stíobhairt, David Staunton, S. Guerin","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.\n\n\nFindings\nThere was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are principles of recovery-oriented practice evident in staff and service user perspectives on seclusion?\",\"authors\":\"Antaine Stíobhairt, David Staunton, S. Guerin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThere was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的本文旨在探讨以康复为导向的实践原则在多大程度上体现在卫生专业人员和服务使用者对成人心理健康服务隔离的观点和经验中。设计/方法/方法根据PRISMA指南,从2018年8月和2022年8月搜索的四个数据库中进行了系统审查。只有被评为具有“重大”相关性的原始实证研究才被纳入。数据从31项研究中提取,并以恢复原理为主题,通过演绎分析进行定性综合。发现有有限的证据表明,对与世隔绝的看法符合恢复原则,有更多的证据表明有直接反对这些原则的看法。对服务用户视角的研究比工作人员视角更经常强调这一点。研究结果强调了照顾和控制与权利冲突之间的矛盾关系,并强调有必要公开承认隔离的复杂性及其与康复的关系。研究局限性/含义本综述是根据国际最佳实践制定的,并已注册该方案。使用只有三个组成部分的搜索字符串可以最大限度地提高搜索过程中的灵敏度,并将遗漏相关文献的风险降至最低。局限性包括对全文以英文发表的研究的关注。独创性/价值这篇综述做出了独特的贡献,强调据作者所知,迄今为止没有任何研究明确探讨工作人员和服务使用者在以康复为导向的实践中使用隔离的观点和经验。这些发现与临床实践、政策和未来研究相关,包括修改程序和实践,在认为有必要隔离的情况下,部分协调隔离和恢复。
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
Are principles of recovery-oriented practice evident in staff and service user perspectives on seclusion?
Purpose This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes. Findings There was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery. Research limitations/implications This review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English. Originality/value This review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Understanding gender-responsive needs of girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE): menstrual cycle considerations Editorial: The British and Irish group for the study of personality disorder: reflections on the 23rd annual conference The “Team Tree” Professional Tree of Life intervention: development and evaluation within the acute inpatient psychiatric setting Systematicity of receiving mental health care predicts better subjective well-being of Ukrainians during the second year of the Russian invasion Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation
×
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