ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
A longitudinal analysis of the prevalence of restrictive interventions involving women with mental health conditions, learning disabilities or autism in mental health services in England.
Article in Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Restrictive interventions, including physical restraint, seclusion, chemical restraint, and segregation, continue to be used within mental health services, despite sustained policy efforts to promote least-restrictive and trauma-informed care. However, little is known about national trends affecting women, for whom restrictive interventions often carry heightened risks of re-traumatisation and stigma. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal secondary analysis of publicly available administrative data from the Mental Health Bulletin covering NHS-funded mental health services in England between 2017 and 2025. Annual counts of restrictive interventions involving women were examined relative to the number of women detained under the Mental Health Act to estimate annual rates per 1,000 detained. Regression modelling was used to assess temporal trends overall, by age group and type of restrictive intervention, and interrupted time-series analyses to examine changes following implementation of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 ("Seni's Law"). Trends were also examined alongside available national data on restrictive interventions involving men. Results: Rates of restrictive interventions involving women increased by approximately 12 percent per year over the study period, with no evidence of a reduction following the introduction of Seni's Law. Increases were most pronounced for chemical restraint, seclusion, and segregation, while physical and mechanical restraint remained stable. Restrictive interventions declined among women under 18 but increased consistently across all adult age groups, indicating a widening age-related divergence. Although overall trends broadly mirrored those observed among men, the types of restrictive interventions used and their potential impact may differ, highlighting gendered dimensions in how restrictive practices are experienced and applied. Discussion: Despite extensive national initiatives, restrictive interventions involving women have continued to rise in England, highlighting a persistent gap between policy intent and practice. The findings suggest that legislative frameworks alone are insufficient to achieve meaningful reductions without operational changes in clinical practice, organisational culture, and monitoring systems. Internationally, the study contributes rare gender-disaggregated longitudinal evidence and highlights the need for comparable monitoring systems and coordinated research to inform rights-based, trauma-informed strategies to reduce restrictive interventions in mental health services.
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.