RNOtherNursing open2026

The Barriers and Enablers to the Use of Alternative Approaches to Restrictive Practices: A Scoping Review and Causal Loop Diagram.

Stephanie L Bennetts, Genevieve Pepin, James J Lucas

PMID 42487336

WHAT IT FOUND

Mental health staff and service users described factors they said mattered for reducing restraint and seclusion: better communication, rapport, peer support, trauma-informed care, de-escalation training, adequate staffing and ward environments.

This maps barriers and enablers, not tested effectiveness.

Key findings

01The review mapped barriers and enablers to alternatives to restrictive practices into four domains: peer support, relationships and communication; staff capacity and the clinical environment; practitioner decision-making; and transforming practice away from the status quo.

02Service users and practitioners described different priorities: service users centred on communication, therapeutic relationships and peer support, while practitioners centred on training, leadership and safer working conditions.

03The review did not establish that any alternative reduces restrictive practices; it focused on barriers and enablers rather than intervention outcomes.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This was a scoping review, so it mapped literature rather than testing whether alternatives reduce restrictive practices. The paper states inclusion criteria of qualitative or mixed methods, but reports quantitative designs among the included studies. No studies were excluded on quality grounds, so methodological quality did not filter the evidence base. Most included articles focused on practitioners' perspectives, and the nursing profession was represented far more than other practitioner groups. The causal loop diagram is the authors' interpretation and is described as an initial framework, not a comprehensive model. The review was northern-hemisphere dominant, and some studies did not report participant gender.

Declared interests

The research was supported by a Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. The authors report no conflicts of interest and nothing to disclose.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the causal loop diagram as proof that communication, peer support or de-escalation training reduce restraint or seclusion. This scoping review mapped barriers and enablers rather than testing intervention outcomes.

Read it on PubMed →