Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review

Introduction

The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective.

Aim

To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital.

Method

An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken.

Results

There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences.

Discussion

There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions.

Implications for Practice

More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.