Key international themes in coercion

Evidence synthesis on coercion in mental health: An umbrella review

Coercion in mental healthcare is ubiquitous and affects the physical health, recovery and psychological and emotional well-being of those who experience it. Numerous studies have explored different issues related to coercion, and the present umbrella review aims to gather, evaluate and synthesise the evidence found across systematic reviews. The protocol, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196713), included 46 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary studies whose main theme was coercion and which were obtained from databases (Medline/PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) and repositories of systematic reviews following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the reviews were subjected to independent assessment of quality and risk of bias and were grouped in two categories: (1) evidence on specific coercive measures (including Community Treatment Orders, forced treatment, involuntary admissions, seclusion and restriction and informal coercion), taking into account their prevalence, related factors, effectiveness, harmful effects and alternatives to reduce their use; and (2) experiences, perceptions and attitudes concerning coercion of professionals, mental health service users and their caregivers or relatives. This umbrella review can be useful to professionals and users in addressing the wide variety of aspects encompassed by coercion and the implications for professionals' daily clinical practice in mental health units. This research received funding from two competitive calls.

Current State of Research on Coercion in Mental Health: Umbrella Review Protocol

In recent years, international organizations, professionals, and representatives of mental health service users have expressed the need to regulate, limit, and even eliminate coercive measures in psychiatric treatment. The main objective of the current review is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on coercion in mental health care through a protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews. This protocol was designed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute guide for methodological development, conduct, and reporting of umbrella reviews. To minimize bias in the process, two independent reviewers selected the studies to be included, extracted, and synthesized; analyzed the data; and assessed risk of bias of each review. The review protocol was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. This review offers a comprehensive compilation of systematic reviews on coercion developed to date. Coercion causes adverse physical and psychological effects and is an emotional stressor for individuals with psychiatric diagnoses and health care workers. Characterization of coercion across care settings, its impact on clinical outcomes, the perception of those involved, and how coercion could be reduced will also be discussed. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx(xx), xx-xx.].

Risk factors associated with use of coercive practices in adult mental health inpatients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Coercive practices such as restraint (physically holding a person) or seclusion (containing a person in locked room) are frequently used in mental health care. How often and which specific practices are used is not consistent across different healthcare systems, hospitals or wards. Internationally, there is agreement on the need to monitor and reduce the use of coercive practices. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The reviewed evidence suggests a number of different factors affect a person's risk of experiencing coercive practices, while admitted to a mental health ward. However, there is currently not enough high-quality research evidence to say which factors are most important or how they work to influence the likelihood of a person experiencing coercive practice. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When carrying out risk assessments, mental health professionals must take into account that a number of different factors are important and explore these with the patient. Care plans aimed at minimizing the use of coercive practices, such as restraint, must be personalized and developed with the individual. ABSTRACT: Introduction Coercive practices, such as physical restraint and seclusion, are a common feature of all mental healthcare systems. However, there is considerable variation in their use, concern about their iatrogenic potential and agreement internationally on the need to monitor and reduce their use. Aims To examine the evidence concerning risk factors associated with use of coercive practices in adults admitted to inpatient psychiatric services. Method A systematic review, consistent with PRIMSA guidelines, of four databases (PsychINFO, Medline, CINHAL and Embase). Peer-reviewed, English language articles from database inception to February 2020 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria. Risk factors examined in the studies organized around four categories: patient socio-demographic; patient clinical; staff; and organizational factors. Overall, methodological quality of papers was deemed weak, and there was insufficient evidence to support any singular risk factor. Discussion The reviewed evidence suggests risk of coercive practice in inpatient mental health settings is multifactorial. Further research to standardize concept definitions and elucidate the mechanisms behind variance in use is required. Implications for Practice Assessment of patients at risk of coercive practice must take a multifactorial approach.

The use of pasung for people with mental illness: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background

Pasung is the term used in Indonesia and a number of other countries for seclusion and restraint of people with mental illness in the community, usually at home by their family. While pasung has been banned because it is contrary to human rights, its practice continues to exist within the community, particularly where community mental health services are limited, and in the absence of adequate social support, and pervasive negatives beliefs about mental illness. It is essential to understand the reasons for the ongoing use of pasung and to examine potential solutions.

Methods

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of peer-reviewed international literature was conducted to identify the socio-cultural contexts for pasung use, and interventions to address it. The analysis draws on the socio-ecological framework, which focused on relationships between the individual and their environment.

Result

Fifty published articles were included in the review; all studies were conducted in Asia and Africa, with 32 undertaken in Indonesia. Most studies were qualitative (n = 21). Others included one case–control study, one cross-sectional study, and seven surveys; only four studies examined the application of an intervention, and each used a pre and post methodology. Of these, two studies tested psychoeducational interventions which aimed to overcome family burden due to pasung, and each suggested a community mental health approach. The remaining two studies evaluated the intervention of ‘unlocking’; one study used a community-based culturally sensitive approach, and the other used a community-based rehabilitation program. Reasons for pasung given by family appear to be as a last resort and in the absence of other supports to help them care for the person with severe mental illness.

Conclusion

The findings highlight that a mixture of individual, interpersonal, community and policy interventions are needed to reduce the use of pasung. While consumer and carer involvement as part of a socio-ecological approach is understood to be effective in reducing pasung, an understanding of how to elaborate this in the management of pasung remains elusive.

Review Registration CRD42020157543: CRD

Implementation of Guidelines on Prevention of Coercion and Violence (PreVCo) in Psychiatry: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

BACKGROUND

Coercive measures are among the most controversial interventions in psychiatry. There is a large discrepancy between the sheer number of high-quality guidelines and the small number of scientifically accompanied initiatives to promote and evaluate their implementation into clinical routine. In Germany, an expert group developed guidelines to provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on how to deal with violence and coercion in psychiatry.

METHODS

The study presented examines whether coercive measures on psychiatric wards can be reduced by means of an operationalized implementation of the guidelines "Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults". Out of a set of 12 interventions offered, wards are free to choose three interventions they want to implement. The primary outcome is the number of coercive measures per bed and month/year. Secondary outcomes are cumulative duration of coercive measures per bed and month/year. The most important control variable is the number of aggressive incidents. We plan to recruit 52 wards in Germany. Wards treating both voluntary and compulsorily admitted patients will be included. A 1:1 stratified randomized controlled trial will be conducted stratified by the amount of coercive measures and implemented aspects of the guidelines. In addition to the control group analysis, a waiting list design allows a pre-post analysis for all participating wards of the waiting list group. A parallel qualitative study will examine factors related to successful implementation and to successful reduction of coercion as well as relevant barriers.

DISCUSSION

We are planning a nationwide study on the implementation of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines in psychiatric hospitals. This study intends to promote the transfer of expert knowledge as well as results from clinical trials into clinical routine with the potential to change supply structures in mental health sector.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

Chaining, culture and values: ethical issues in research in middle- and low-income countries

A paper in this month's British Journal of Psychiatry reports on research from Ghana where some participants were exposed to chaining, which raises ethical concerns. Strict boundaries need to exist between researchers and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Nevertheless, there may be things we can learn from other cultures about our own values. Declaration of interest None.