Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKinner, SA
dc.contributor.authorHarvey, C
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, B
dc.contributor.authorBrophy, L
dc.contributor.authorRoper, C
dc.contributor.authorMcSherry, B
dc.contributor.authorYoung, JT
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-30T04:33:05Z
dc.date.available2018-04-30T04:33:05Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn2045-7960
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S2045796016000585
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/123892
dc.description.abstractAims. There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible. Methods. In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices. Results. In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries. Conclusions. There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherCambridge University Press
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1
dc.relation.ispartofpageto10
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEpidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode179999
dc.titleAttitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.description.versionPublished
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
gro.description.notepublicThis publication has been entered into Griffith Research Online as an Advanced Online Version.
gro.rights.copyright© Cambridge University Press 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorKinner, Stuart A.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record