ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Maximising relational capabilities and minimising restrictive practices in acute mental health units: the Safe Steps for De-escalation evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives and Experiences of People Receiving Care on a De-escalation Intervention to Reduce Restrictive Practices in Acute Mental Health Units.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Perspectives and Experiences of Nurses Implementing the Safe Steps for De-Escalation in Acute Mental Health Units.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Functional, Contextual, and Interventional Drivers of Formal Coercion in Acute Mental Health Units: A Feature Analysis.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
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
Objectives: De-escalation is widely endorsed as an intentional strategy to replace and reduce restrictive practices in acute mental health units. However, high-quality evidence for its effective implementation remains limited. In response, a pragmatic, complexity-informed evaluation was undertaken to generate empirical support for the impact of an intervention, Methods: A mixed concurrent control study was conducted in three adult inpatient units in New South Wales, Australia, from March 2023 to April 2025. Results: Compared to three control sites, implementation sites had a lower total restrictive practice event rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% CI [0.60, 0.69], Conclusion: Despite mixed results, the evaluation offers support that structured therapeutic responding helps minimise restrictive practices, without evidence suggesting a substitution of one form of coercion for another.
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.