Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42848057›Full record

ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026

Legislative differences regarding coercive measures in mental health care for children and adolescents across European countries.

Konsta Hakala, Tjaša Vranetič, Astrid Moell, Jörg M Fegert, Maja Drobnič Radobuljac, Robert Vermeiren, Riittakerttu Kaltiala, ESCAP Coercion and Restraint Consortium

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Konsta HakalaFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1966-6133
Tjaša VranetičChild Psychiatry Unit, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, University Children's Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8975-3572
Astrid MoellCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1185-711X
Jörg M FegertDepartment for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6070-4323
Maja Drobnič RadobuljacFaculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8632-9725
Robert VermeirenChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Leiden, LUMC-Curium, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8673-2207
Riittakerttu KaltialaFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland. Riittakerttu.kaltiala@tuni.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-3892
ESCAP Coercion and Restraint Consortium

Funding

The Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency J3-4534 and P3-0343
6 · The paper itself

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

Child and adolescent psychiatryCoercive measuresEuropean society for child and adolescent psychiatryInvoluntary hospitalisationMental health legislationSeclusion and restraint

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.