Abstract
Purpose
To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings.
Methods
A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored.
Results
Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1).
Conclusions
Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers’ and clinicians’ understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice.
To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings.
Methods
A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored.
Results
Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1).
Conclusions
Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers’ and clinicians’ understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology |
| Vol/bind | 58 |
| Udgave nummer | 4 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 505-522 |
| ISSN | 0933-7954 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - apr. 2023 |