Ethnic disparities in the use of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: a scoping review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Ethnic disparities in the use of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: a scoping review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pedersen, Martin Locht (AUTHOR), Gildberg, Frederik (AUTHOR), Baker, John (AUTHOR), Damsgaard, Janne Brammer (AUTHOR), Tingleff, Ellen Boldrup (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology. Apr2023, Vol. 58 Issue 4, p505-522. 18p. |
| Subjects: | Ethnicity, Mental health, Restraint of patients, Grey literature, CINAHL database, Minorities, Indigenous peoples |
| Geographic Terms: | Asia |
| Abstract: | Purpose: To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. Methods: A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored. Results: Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1). Conclusions: Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers' and clinicians' understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. Methods: A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored. Results: Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1). Conclusions: Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers' and clinicians' understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09337954 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00127-022-02387-8 |
