Safewards to reduce coercive measures in forensic psychiatric care

Reading time approx. 1 minute
This page contains 1 evidence gap
  1. Safewards to reduce coercive measures in forensic psychiatric care
Population:
Adults in forensic psychiatric care
Intervention:
Safewards
Outcomes:
Primary outcomes: Coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint
Secondary outcomes: Patient experiences, everyday functioning and quality of life

What evidence is needed?

More primary research is needed.

What evidence is available?

Reliable systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

  • Finch K, Lawrence D, Williams MO, Thompson AR, Hartwright C. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Safewards: Has Enthusiasm Exceeded Evidence? Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2022;43(2):119-36. More about the review
  • Mullen A, Browne G, Hamilton B, Skinner S, Happell B. Safewards: An integrative review of the literature within inpatient and forensic mental health units. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2022. More about the review

Reliable, but not updated, systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

None identified

Information from SBU Enquiry Service: SBU. Metoder för att minska tvångsåtgärder inom psykiatrisk slutenvård: Safewards och Six core strategies [Methods to reduce coercive measures within inpatient mental healthcare: Safewards and Six core strategies]. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering (SBU); 2022. SBU:s upplysningstjänst ut202220. Read more

Registration number:
Published:
Research conducted after publication could potentially change the nature of the evidence.
To top

Evidence gap identifies methods or practices for which no conclusive systematic review of benefits and harms has been published. Gaps in scientific evidence appear on the SBU website to help researchers and granting agencies identify areas that are in need of research or systematic review. An additional objective is to offer healthcare and social service providers a basis for setting priorities.