ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Informing the redesign of psychiatric seclusion rooms: a mixed-methods pre-evaluation with individuals with lived experience.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn acute psychiatric inpatient settings, where perception is altered and emotional vulnerability is heightened, many facilities use coercive seclusion rooms for safety. This practice has been increasingly criticized for its psychological impact. While architectural guidelines emphasize human-centered and biophilic design to support well-being, empirical evidence on how design features in this specific setting affect patients remains limited.
methodsThis mixed-methods study examined how individuals with lived experience of coercive isolation in seclusion rooms (N = 30) perceived different wall designs. The participants viewed ten digitally rendered images of a to-be-redesigned seclusion room, including furniture, varying in wall design (six nature-themed images, three wall colors: blue, green, beige; and a white empty control room) and rated each on restfulness, stress, liking, and overwhelm. This was followed by qualitative interviews on needs and design preferences.
resultsNature-themed wallpapers, especially an image of grass-covered dunes by the sea, and blue and green wall colors were rated as more restorative and less stressful than both the empty white control room and a beige-painted comparison room, or a more complex, ‘rough’ wilderness nature image. Qualitative findings emphasized calm, homelike, nature-themed, and controllable environments, orientation, more transparent and empathetic communication, and respectful care.
conclusionsIndividuals with lived experience respond more favorably to blue and green color schemes and non-complex, calm nature imagery, compared to more neutral or sterile low-stimulation designs, challenging long-standing assumptions that sensory deprivation best supports de-escalation in seclusion. The study further illustrates the feasibility and ethical value of participatory pre-evaluative research to inform design.
trial registrationThe study and main analyses were pre-registered 2024/08/22 at aspredicted.org (#187275) https://aspredicted.org/9ht9-ckwn.pdf . CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.