ReviewInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
Mental Health Nurses' Enforcement of Involuntary Care in Inpatient Settings: A Meta-Ethnography.
Review in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ethics of mandated inpatient mental healthcare: The consumer perspective.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
- More coercion, less support: A latent class analysis of post-incident reviews for mental health inpatients exposed to coercive practice.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Legal and ethical conflicts in hospital settings: thematic synthesis of qualitative studies focused on nursing practice.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Maximising relational capabilities and minimising restrictive practices in acute mental health units: the Safe Steps for De-escalation evaluation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
Mental health nursing practices within inpatient care aim to empower consumers to lead their treatment and recovery. However, involuntary care may be justified for safety reasons. This practice can be traumatising and harmful. Our review explores the enforcement of involuntary care by mental health nurses in inpatient settings utilising meta-ethnography. Searches of articles published over a 10-year period (2014-2024) were conducted in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and MEDLINE. The searches aimed to identify rich qualitative data on this area of mental health nursing practice. Six articles were selected for inclusion and a reciprocal translation synthesis was undertaken. Three key metaphors emerged: 'a necessary evil', 'the dilemmas of enforcement' and 'perturbed practice'. These metaphors illustrate the complex and often conflicting emotions nurses experience when enforcing involuntary care. Nurses viewed the enforcement of involuntary care as a necessary but difficult practice, justified by the belief that it ultimately benefits the person's safety and well-being. Despite justifying involuntary care as necessary, nurses faced ethical dilemmas balancing patient autonomy, safety and dignity. Enforcing involuntary care caused significant emotional distress for nurses, who experienced discomfort, guilt and moral conflict, questioning their actions and the impact on their relationships with consumers. The findings highlight the importance of minimising restrictive practices and developing supportive frameworks that prioritise patient dignity and autonomy while ensuring safety.
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.