Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37852743›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2026

Restraint in somatic healthcare: how should it be regulated?

Amina Guenna Holmgren, Ann-Christin von Vogelsang, Anna Lindblad, Niklas Juth

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amina Guenna HolmgrenDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden amina.guenna.holmgren@ki.se.
Ann-Christin von VogelsangHeart, Vascular and Neuro Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna LindbladDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Niklas JuthDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restraint is regularly used in somatic healthcare settings, and countries have chosen different paths to regulate restraint in somatic healthcare. One overarching problem when regulating restraint is to ensure that patients with reduced decision-making capacity receive the care they need and at the same time ensure that patients with a sufficient degree of decision-making capacity are not forced into care that they do not want. Here, arguments of justice, trust in the healthcare system, minimising harm and respecting autonomy are contrasted with different national regulations. We conclude that a regulation that incorporates an assessment of patients' decision-making capacity and considers the patient's best interests is preferable, in contrast to regulations based on psychiatric diagnoses or regulations where there are no legal possibilities to exercise restraint at all in somatic care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareMental CompetencyRestraint, PhysicalHumansPersonal AutonomyTrustCoercionDecision MakingEthicsPolicy

Identifiers

PMID37852743
PMCPMC13018818
OpenAlexW4387737157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.