The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

Objective:

The authors used survey data to investigate patients’ experiences of restrictive interventions in inpatient settings.

Methods:

The 2010 Australian Survey of High Impact Psychosis (N=1,825) asked about restrictive interventions experienced during a mental health admission in the previous year (N=428), ranging from restrictions on leaving a ward to seclusion. The authors explored the relationship between perceived benefit (good or limited versus no benefit) and the number of different types of restrictive interventions experienced.

Results:

Twenty-three percent had recently experienced one or more restrictive interventions; of these, 42% had experienced forced medication and 35% had experienced seclusion. Although most reported some benefit, perceptions of benefit were lower among those who experienced a greater number of interventions.

Conclusions:

People with psychosis who experienced a greater number of restrictive interventions were less likely to find restrictions justified or beneficial. The cumulative effect of increased numbers of restrictions may also lead to worsening perceptions of benefit.