ReviewDer Nervenarzt2021
[Post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefing with patients-overview and current situation].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shared decision-making in post-coercion debriefing interventions in psychiatry - a scoping review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch on measures to prevent or reduce the use of coercive measures is steadily gaining momentum in research. Post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings with the affected patients are recommended in treatment guidelines but the effectiveness as an intervention has so far only scarcely been studied. AIMS AND
methodsThis article briefly outlines the existing literature on post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings, the legal basis in Germany, recommendations by various treatment guidelines as well as the existing evidence of the effectiveness. Furthermore, challenges pertaining to the implementation of debriefings are discussed.
resultsVarious treatment guidelines recommend post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings with patients and the individual Mental Health Laws (PsychKG) of the German federal states provide more or less specific guidance on how to implement the intervention. So far, hardly any scientific studies on the effectiveness of post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings exist but they are already carried out in a variety of complex treatment concepts. Various parameters, e.g. who participates and when the debriefing is conducted, also vary across implementations. Initial pilot studies have shown indications for positive effects in terms of reducing coercive measures through the implementation of post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings; however, structured debriefings are not yet part of routine practice.
conclusionStructured post-seclusion/post-restraint debriefings with patients constitute a possible intervention to reduce coercive measures, but as of now there is little scientific evidence for the efficacy. Incorporating them into complex therapeutic treatment concepts for ward programs appears to be meaningful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32725493What 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.