Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31953847›Full record

ArticleActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2020

Preventing and reducing 'coercion' in mental health services: an international scoping review of English-language studies.

P Gooding, B McSherry, C Roper

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Ensuring compulsory treatment is used as a last resort: a narrative review of the knowledge about Community Treatment Orders.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

P GoodingUniversity of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5743-5708
B McSherryUniversity of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia.
C RoperUniversity of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses initiatives aimed at preventing and reducing 'coercive practices' in mental health and community settings worldwide, including in hospitals in high-income countries, and in family homes and rural communities in low- and middle-income countries. The article provides a scoping review of the current state of English-language empirical research. It identifies several promising opportunities for improving responses that promote support based on individuals' rights, will and preferences. It also points out several gaps in research and practice (including, importantly, a gap in reviews of non-English-language studies). Overall, many studies suggest that efforts to prevent and reduce coercion appear to be effective. However, no jurisdiction appears to have combined the full suite of laws, policies and practices which are available, and which taken together might further the goal of eliminating coercion.

Indexed as

CoercionLanguageHumansMental HealthMental Health Servicescoercionhuman rightsreducing coercion

Identifiers

PMID31953847
PMCPMC7496148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.