ArticlePloS one2025
Factors involving in healthcare professionals' decision-making process regarding the use of restrictive care practices in adult mental health inpatient units: A protocol for an umbrella review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of restrictive care practices, such as physical restraint, seclusion, and chemical restraint, remains common practices, yet controversial aspect of mental health care, particularly in inpatient settings. Variations in legal definitions and protocols guiding the implementation of these practices often create legal and ethical dilemmas for professionals when deciding whether to implement such practices in certain circumstances. This leads them to rely on subjective decision-making, which is further shaped by epistemic disparities stemming from differences in knowledge, perspectives, and experiences that impact professionals' understanding and implementation of restrictive practices.
aimsThis is a study protocol for an upcoming umbrella review aiming to identify and analyse the thematic elements that affect healthcare professionals' decision-making regarding the uimplementations of restrictive care practices in adult mental health inpatient settings.
methodsThis protocol outlines the approach for an umbrella review. The review will conduct a systematic literature search of electronic databases (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, OVID, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science) using comprehensive search strings, as well as a manual review of reference lists from included reviews. Only review studies will be considered. Textual data discussing issues related to professionals' decision-making regarding the use of restrictive care practices will be extracted from each study, coded, and analysed using inductive content analysis. This protocol has been reported according to the PRISMA-P Checklist. DISCUSSION: The findings from this review will provide valuable insights into the key factors influencing the implementation of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. The factors identified in this umbrella review will be applied in clinical practices to guide healthcare practitioners in considering and navigating various contexts when deciding how and in which situations restrictive care practices should be implemented. This contributes to the current global effort in promoting more patient-centered, transparent, evidence-based and accountable practices, while minimizing restrictive interventions. It will also inform future training, practice, and policy interventions aiming at reducing the use of restrictive measures in adult mental health settings. Protocol registration: This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD-42024581848).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.