<?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>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veronica Fjeld</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A comparison of Norway and Denmark’s legislations regarding the use of restraints in  psychiatric institutions in light of the Human Rights Convention article 3.</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">article 3</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">artikkel 3</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">belteseng</style></keyword><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%">Human Rights Convention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mekaniske tvangsmidler</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Restraints</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tvangsmidler.</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">05.08.2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">University of Dundee</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dundee</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The theme of the dissertation is to examine the Norwegian and Danish legislations regarding the use of restraints in psychiatric health care and study the legislations in light of the European Convention on Human Rights article 3. The hypothesis is that Denmark uses restraints in a wider scope and with a longer duration than Norway.&amp;nbsp;Based on this, could distinctions in regulation explain this difference? Furthermore, the use of restraints is a severe intervention in a person&amp;rsquo;s sphere and integrity. ECHR article 3 prohibits such intervention, unless some requirements are fulfilled. Therefore, is the operating law in Norway and Denmark in accordance with article 3? To answer these questions the legislations which regulates when it is lawful to put a patient under restraints will be examined and thereafter the legislations will be compared to see if there is a difference. To examine the situation regarding use of restraints and whether the two countries practice is in accordance with article 3, one court decision from both the countries will be examined and the two most recent reports from The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.&amp;nbsp;This will give an indication of the situation of the operating law in the two countries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Master thesis</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%">Steinert T, Baumgardt J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bechdolf A, Bühling-Schndowski F</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cole C, Flammer E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jaeger S, Junghanss J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kampmann, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mahler, L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Muche, R</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence (PreVCo) in psychiatry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers in Psychiatry</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coercive measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence based treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Psychiatry</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">quality management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Restraint</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Seclusion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">violence</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">09.15.2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">file:///C:/Users/jha041/Downloads/fpsyt-11-579176.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;Coercive measures are among the most controversial interventions in psychiatry. There is a large discrepancy between the sheer number of high-quality guidelines and the small number of scientifically accompanied initiatives to promote and evaluate their implementation into clinical routine. In Germany, an expert group developed guidelines to provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on how to deal with violence and coercion in psychiatry.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>