<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>36</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tella Lantta</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Joy Duxbury</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alina Haines Delmot</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anna Bjørkdahl</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Models, frameworks and theories in the implementation of programs targeted to reduce formal coercion in mental health settings: a systematic review</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coercion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coercive measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">implementation science</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">implementation tool</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mental Health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychiatric care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">96/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1158145/full</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;troduction: Implementation models, frameworks and theories (hereafter tools) provide researchers and clinicians with an approach to understand the processes and mechanisms for the successful implementation of healthcare innovations. Previous research in mental health settings has revealed, that the implementation of coercion reduction programs presents a number of challenges. However, there is a lack of systematized knowledge of whether the advantages of implementation science have been utilized in this field of research. This systematic review aims to gain a better understanding of which tools have been used by studies when implementing programs aiming to reduce formal coercion in mental health settings, and what implementation outcomes they have reported. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. A manual search was used to supplement database searches. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken using MMAT&amp;mdash;Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A descriptive and narrative synthesis was formed based on extracted data. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in this review. Results: We identified 5,295 references after duplicates were removed. Four additional references were found with a manual search. In total eight studies reported in nine papers were included in the review. Coercion reduction programs that were implemented included those that were holistic, and/or used professional judgement, staff training and sensory modulation interventions. Eight different implementation tools were identified from the included studies. None of them reported all eight implementation outcomes sought from the papers. The most frequently reported outcomes were acceptability (4/8 studies) and adaptation (3/8). With regards to implementation costs, no data were provided by any of the studies. The quality of the studies was assessed to be overall quite low. Discussion: Systematic implementation tools are seldom used when efforts are being made to embed interventions to reduce coercive measures in routine mental health care. More high-quality studies are needed in the research area that also involves perspectives of service users and carers. In addition, based on our review, it is unclear what the costs and resources are needed to implement complex interventions with the guidance of an implementation tool. Systematic review registration: [Prospero], identifier [CRD42021284959].&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Systematic Review</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jaakko Varpula</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maritta Välimäki,</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johanna Pulkkinen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tella Lantta</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Patient Falls in Seclusion Rooms in Psychiatric Inpatient Care: A Sociotechnical Probabilistic Risk Modeling Study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Nursing Care Quality</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accidental falls</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hospital psychiatric department</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">inpatients</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">patient safety</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk assessment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9944373/pdf/jncqu-38-190.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ABSTRACT Background:&lt;/strong&gt; Patient falls are a major adverse event in psychiatric inpatient care. Purpose: To model the risk for patient falls in seclusion rooms in psychiatric inpatient care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; Sociotechnical probabilistic risk assessment (ST-PRA) was used to model the risk for falls. Data sources were the research team, literature review, and exploration groups of psychiatric nurses. Data were analyzed with fault tree analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results&lt;/strong&gt;: The risk for a patient fall in a seclusion room was 1.8%. Critical paths included diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, the mechanism of falls, failure to assess and prevent falls, and psychological or physical reason. The most significant individual risk factor for falls was diagnosis of schizophrenia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Falls that occur in seclusion events are associated with physical and psychological risk factors. Therefore, risk assessment methods and fall prevention interventions considering patient behavioral disturbance and physiological risk factors in seclusion are warranted.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>