Cargando…

Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and et...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soininen, Päivi, Putkonen, Hanna, Joffe, Grigori, Korkeila, Jyrki, Välimäki, Maritta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24894162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-162
_version_ 1782320162065612800
author Soininen, Päivi
Putkonen, Hanna
Joffe, Grigori
Korkeila, Jyrki
Välimäki, Maritta
author_facet Soininen, Päivi
Putkonen, Hanna
Joffe, Grigori
Korkeila, Jyrki
Välimäki, Maritta
author_sort Soininen, Päivi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients’ perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay. METHODS: Systematic mixed studies review was the study method. Studies reporting patients’ perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during hospital stay were included. Methodological issues such as study design, data collection and recruitment process, participants, sampling, patient refusal or non-participation, and ethical issues such as informed consent process, and approval were synthesized systematically. Electronic searches of CINALH, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library (1976-2012) were carried out. RESULTS: Out of 846 initial citations, 32 studies were included, 14 qualitative and 18 quantitative studies. A variety of methodological approaches were used, although descriptive and explorative designs were used in most cases. Data were mainly collected in qualitative studies by interviews (n = 13) or in quantitative studies by self-report questionnaires (n = 12). The recruitment process was explained in 59% (n = 19) of the studies. In most cases convenience sampling was used, yet five studies used randomization. Patient’s refusal or non-participation was reported in 37% (n = 11) of studies. Of all studies, 56% (n = 18) had reported undergone an ethical review process in an official board or committee. Respondents were informed and consent was requested in 69% studies (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: The use of different study designs made comparison methodologically challenging. The timing of data collection (considering bias and confounding factors) and the reasons for non-participation of eligible participants are likewise methodological challenges, e.g. recommended flow charts could aid the information. Other challenges identified were the recruitment of large and representative samples. Ethical challenges included requesting participants’ informed consent and respecting ethical procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4051960
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40519602014-06-12 Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review Soininen, Päivi Putkonen, Hanna Joffe, Grigori Korkeila, Jyrki Välimäki, Maritta BMC Psychiatry Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients’ perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay. METHODS: Systematic mixed studies review was the study method. Studies reporting patients’ perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during hospital stay were included. Methodological issues such as study design, data collection and recruitment process, participants, sampling, patient refusal or non-participation, and ethical issues such as informed consent process, and approval were synthesized systematically. Electronic searches of CINALH, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library (1976-2012) were carried out. RESULTS: Out of 846 initial citations, 32 studies were included, 14 qualitative and 18 quantitative studies. A variety of methodological approaches were used, although descriptive and explorative designs were used in most cases. Data were mainly collected in qualitative studies by interviews (n = 13) or in quantitative studies by self-report questionnaires (n = 12). The recruitment process was explained in 59% (n = 19) of the studies. In most cases convenience sampling was used, yet five studies used randomization. Patient’s refusal or non-participation was reported in 37% (n = 11) of studies. Of all studies, 56% (n = 18) had reported undergone an ethical review process in an official board or committee. Respondents were informed and consent was requested in 69% studies (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: The use of different study designs made comparison methodologically challenging. The timing of data collection (considering bias and confounding factors) and the reasons for non-participation of eligible participants are likewise methodological challenges, e.g. recommended flow charts could aid the information. Other challenges identified were the recruitment of large and representative samples. Ethical challenges included requesting participants’ informed consent and respecting ethical procedures. BioMed Central 2014-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4051960/ /pubmed/24894162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-162 Text en Copyright © 2014 Soininen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Soininen, Päivi
Putkonen, Hanna
Joffe, Grigori
Korkeila, Jyrki
Välimäki, Maritta
Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title_full Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title_fullStr Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title_full_unstemmed Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title_short Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
title_sort methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients’ perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24894162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-162
work_keys_str_mv AT soininenpaivi methodologicalandethicalchallengesinstudyingpatientsperceptionsofcoercionasystematicmixedstudiesreview
AT putkonenhanna methodologicalandethicalchallengesinstudyingpatientsperceptionsofcoercionasystematicmixedstudiesreview
AT joffegrigori methodologicalandethicalchallengesinstudyingpatientsperceptionsofcoercionasystematicmixedstudiesreview
AT korkeilajyrki methodologicalandethicalchallengesinstudyingpatientsperceptionsofcoercionasystematicmixedstudiesreview
AT valimakimaritta methodologicalandethicalchallengesinstudyingpatientsperceptionsofcoercionasystematicmixedstudiesreview