Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38317134›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Effects of stricter legislation on coercive measures in child and adolescent psychiatric care: a qualitative interview study with staff.

Astrid Moell, Alexander Rozental, Susanne Buchmayer, Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Niklas Långström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Astrid MoellCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. astrid.moell@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0002-1185-711X
Alexander RozentalCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1019-0245
Susanne BuchmayerCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Riittakerttu KaltialaFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, and Tampere University Hospital, Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-2783-3892
Niklas LångströmCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2686-6799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLegislators often want to positively affect psychiatric inpatient care and reduce coercion by a stricter judicial regulation. However, staff experiences and comprehension of such legal changes are largely unknown, yet essential in obtaining the intended outcomes. We examined staff understanding and implementation of a July 1, 2020 legal change in Sweden regarding the use of coercive measures (e.g., restraint, seclusion, and forced medication) in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient care.

methodsDuring 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient staff (nurses, senior consultants, and head of units). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used an implementation outcomes framework to relate data to a wider implementation science context.

resultsThe legislative change was viewed as both positive and negative by participating staff. They reported mixed levels of preparedness for the legislative change, with substantial challenges during the immediate introduction, including insufficient preparations and lack of clear guidelines. A knowledge hierarchy was evident, affecting various professional roles differently. While the law was positively viewed for its child-centred approach, we found notable distrust in legislators' understanding of the clinical reality, leading to practical difficulties in implementation. Care practices after the legal change varied, with some participants reporting little change in the use of coercive measures, while others noted a shift towards more seclusion and sedative medication usage. The work environment for consultants was described as more challenging due to increased bureaucratic procedures and a heightened pressure for accuracy.

conclusionsThe study highlights the complexities and challenges in implementing legislative changes in psychiatric care, where stricter legislation does not necessarily entail reduced use of coercion.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesAdolescentCoercionHospitals, PsychiatricHumansInpatientsRestraint, PhysicalChild and adolescent psychiatryCoercive measuresCompulsory careInpatient psychiatric careInvoluntary hospitalizationLegislative changeMechanical restraintMental healthSeclusion

Identifiers

PMID38317134
PMCPMC10845720

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.