ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026
Legislative differences regarding coercive measures in mental health care for children and adolescents across European countries.
Article in European child & adolescent 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To examine variations in legal and clinical practice regarding coercive measures use in child and adolescent psychiatry. A study commissioned by the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) Policy Division in collaboration with ESCAP executive board. A questionnaire was distributed to representatives of 36 ESCAP member countries aiming to obtain an overview of coercive measures used, with a focus on regulation and use of mechanical and physical restraint, and seclusion. The survey received 35 responses, covering 24 countries. Data was analysed to identify common themes and notable differences in legislative approaches. Most participating countries lack legislation specifically tailored for minors regarding coercive measures, applying the same standards as adults. Legal conditions for the use of restraint or seclusion generally emphasise imminent danger to self or others. Only six of the 24 countries set a maximum duration for coercive practices, with re-assessment requirements varying from 15 min for restraints to intervals of up to three weeks for seclusion. The study also reveals ethical concerns around the use of coercive measures and highlights discrepancies between legal frameworks and clinical practice across countries. The findings highlight a need for further discussions on shared guidelines to promote ethical and consistent application of coercive measures for minors in European mental health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848057What 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.