Search

Accessible summary What is known on the subject? What the paper adds to existing knowledge? What are the implications for practice? Introduction Aim Method Results Discussion Implications for Practice The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions. 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.To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital.An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken.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.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.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary: What is known on the subject: People with mental disorders have increased risk of dying from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases compared to the general population. Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are preventable by improved lifestyle regarding smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity and dietary behaviours.Forensic mental health service users are treated for longer periods of time compared to non‐forensic mental health service users, giving the opportunity to affect the lifestyle for a substantial period of time. What the paper adds to existing knowledge: This review gathers existing research on forensic mental health service users' lifestyle regarding smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and dietary behaviours and factors influencing it. The lifestyle was found to be unfavourable with many patients being smokers, having problematic alcohol consumption, being physically inactive and eating a diet of poor nutritional value and rich in calories. Therefore, it seems likely that an unfavourable lifestyle is one reason for the excess mortality from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.Smoking cessation and improving dietary habits was perceived difficult, but nicotine replacement and practical advice was suggested to support a change. What are the implications for practice: The treatment period gives an opportunity to improve the lifestyle of forensic mental health service users to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in this high‐risk group.We recommend a holistic approach, when planning the prevention activities, since activities that are perceived fun are more likely to succeed. Introduction: People with mental disorders have increased risk of dying from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, both of which can be prevented by lifestyle. Aim: To review existing research, in order to investigate the characteristics of, and factors that influence forensic mental health service users' (FMU) health behaviours. Method: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Scopus for primary research on FMU's health behaviours regarding smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity and dietary behaviours, and factors that influence them. Results: We found 13 eligible studies. The findings consistently indicated the presence of unfavourable health behaviours in FMU: Smoking, problematic alcohol consumption, physical inactivity and a high‐calorie diet of poor nutritional value. Changing smoking and dietary habits was perceived as difficult, but nicotine replacement and practical advice were suggested to support change. Discussion: The existing research on FMU's health behaviours is sparse. In particular, there is a lack of research on factors that influence health behaviours. From our findings, it seems likely that FMU's unfavourable health behaviours contribute to their increased risk of dying from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Implications for practice: FMU's health behaviours should be improved to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in this high‐risk group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]