ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2018
Long-Term Impact of a Tailored Seclusion Reduction Program: Evidence for Change?
Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Coercion in psychiatric hospitalizations in Chile: madness and suffering in the 21st century].Salud colectiva · 2023Article
- The Forensic High and Intensive Care Monitor: Measurement Properties of a Model Fidelity Scale for Contact-Based Care in Forensic Psychiatry.Administration and policy in mental health · 2022Article
- The Compulsory Care Act: Early Observations and Expectations of In- or Outpatient Involuntary Treatment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Does high and intensive care reduce coercion? Association of HIC model fidelity to seclusion use in the Netherlands.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- Three Pathways of Seclusion Reduction Programs to Sustainability: Ten Years Follow Up in Psychiatry.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2020Article
- Preventing and reducing 'coercion' in mental health services: an international scoping review of English-language studies.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2020Article
- Measures to Avoid Coercion in Psychiatry and Their Efficacy.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Review
- Text Analysis of Electronic Medical Records to Predict Seclusion in Psychiatric Wards: Proof of Concept.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International comparative studies show that Dutch seclusion rates are relatively high. Therefore, several programs to change this practice were developed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a seclusion reduction program over a long time frame, from 2004 until 2013. Three phases could be identified; the phase of development and implementation of the program (2004-2007), the project phase (2008-2010) and the consolidation phase (2011-2013). Five inpatient wards of a mental health institute were monitored. Each ward had one or more seclusion rooms. Primary outcome were the number and the duration of seclusion incidents. Involuntary medication was monitored as well to rule out substitution of one coercive measure by another. Case mix correction for patient characteristics was done by a multi-level logistic regression analysis with patient characteristics as predictors and hours seclusion per admission hours as outcome. Seclusion use reduced significantly during the project phase, both in number (-73%) and duration (-80%) and was not substituted by the use of enforced medication. Patient compilation as analyzed by the multi- level regression seemed not to confound the findings. Findings show a slight increase in number and seclusion days over the last year of monitoring. Whether this should be interpreted as a continuous or temporary trend remains unclear and is subject for further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29527618What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.