Nurses' perspectives on human rights when coercion is used in psychiatry: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence.
Coercion
Human rights
Mental health
Meta-ethnography
Nursing
Psychiatry
Qualitative research
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 12 2019
09 12 2019
Historique:
received:
18
09
2019
accepted:
06
11
2019
entrez:
10
12
2019
pubmed:
10
12
2019
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization describes the perpetuation of human rights violations against people with mental health problems as a global emergency. Despite this observation, recent studies suggest that coercive measures, such as seclusion, restraints, involuntary hospitalization, or involuntary treatment, are steadily or increasingly being used without proof of their effectiveness. In nursing, several literature reviews have focused on understanding nurses' perspectives on the use of seclusion and restraints. Although many studies describe the ethical dilemmas faced by nurses in this context, to this date, their perspectives on patient's rights when a broad variety of coercive measures are used are not well understood. The aim of this review is to produce a qualitative synthesis of how human rights are actually integrated into psychiatric and mental health nursing practice in the context of coercive work. Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach will be used to conduct this systematic review. The search will be conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus databases, using the PICo model (Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context) and a combination of keywords and descriptors. It will be complemented by a manual search of non-indexed articles, gray literature, and other applicable data sources, such as human rights related documents. Qualitative and mixed-method study designs will be included in this review. Empirical and peer-reviewed articles published between 2008 and 2019 will be selected. Articles will be evaluated independently by two reviewers to determine their inclusion against eligibility criteria. The quality of the selected papers will then be independently evaluated by two reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction and content analysis will focus on first- and second-order constructs, that is, the extraction of research participants' narratives and their interpretation. This review will provide a synthesis of how psychiatric and mental health nurses integrate human rights principles into their practice, as well as it will identify research gaps in this area. The results of this review will then provide qualitative evidence to better understand how nurses can contribute to the recognition, protection, and advocate for human rights in a psychiatric context. PROSPERO, CRD42019116862.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization describes the perpetuation of human rights violations against people with mental health problems as a global emergency. Despite this observation, recent studies suggest that coercive measures, such as seclusion, restraints, involuntary hospitalization, or involuntary treatment, are steadily or increasingly being used without proof of their effectiveness. In nursing, several literature reviews have focused on understanding nurses' perspectives on the use of seclusion and restraints. Although many studies describe the ethical dilemmas faced by nurses in this context, to this date, their perspectives on patient's rights when a broad variety of coercive measures are used are not well understood. The aim of this review is to produce a qualitative synthesis of how human rights are actually integrated into psychiatric and mental health nursing practice in the context of coercive work.
METHODS
Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach will be used to conduct this systematic review. The search will be conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus databases, using the PICo model (Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context) and a combination of keywords and descriptors. It will be complemented by a manual search of non-indexed articles, gray literature, and other applicable data sources, such as human rights related documents. Qualitative and mixed-method study designs will be included in this review. Empirical and peer-reviewed articles published between 2008 and 2019 will be selected. Articles will be evaluated independently by two reviewers to determine their inclusion against eligibility criteria. The quality of the selected papers will then be independently evaluated by two reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction and content analysis will focus on first- and second-order constructs, that is, the extraction of research participants' narratives and their interpretation.
DISCUSSION
This review will provide a synthesis of how psychiatric and mental health nurses integrate human rights principles into their practice, as well as it will identify research gaps in this area. The results of this review will then provide qualitative evidence to better understand how nurses can contribute to the recognition, protection, and advocate for human rights in a psychiatric context.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42019116862.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31815660
doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1224-0
pii: 10.1186/s13643-019-1224-0
pmc: PMC6900841
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
318Références
Lancet. 2011 Nov 5;378(9803):1664-75
pubmed: 22008426
Nurs Ethics. 2018 Feb;25(1):92-110
pubmed: 26931767
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Feb;223:89-96
pubmed: 30739039
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2017 May - Jun;52:74-80
pubmed: 28325533
Community Ment Health J. 2018 Feb;54(2):149-157
pubmed: 28255637
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016 Jul-Aug;47:74-8
pubmed: 27044524
World Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;18(1):42-43
pubmed: 30600633
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2013 Nov;20(9):830-9
pubmed: 23217004
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jan 31;19(1):25
pubmed: 30709371
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2017 Oct;26(5):500-512
pubmed: 28960742
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2010 Jun;19(3):162-8
pubmed: 20550639
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Mar 1;68(3):291-294
pubmed: 27691377
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Sep;61:82-94
pubmed: 27314181
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 27;12(10):e1001895
pubmed: 26506244
Scand J Caring Sci. 2014 Sep;28(3):425-34
pubmed: 23937606
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006 Nov-Dec;29(6):535-50
pubmed: 17067674
Midwifery. 2014 May;30(5):544-59
pubmed: 23948185
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019 Dec;28(6):605-612
pubmed: 31284895
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Feb;28(1):7-21
pubmed: 29975446
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Apr;69(4):760-72
pubmed: 23163719
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Dec 30;220(3):1007-11
pubmed: 25249438
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015 Apr;22(3):183-91
pubmed: 25524271
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 17;3:CD004408
pubmed: 28303578
Am J Nurs. 2014 Apr;114(4):53-6
pubmed: 24681476
Health Hum Rights. 2016 Jun;18(1):263-276
pubmed: 27781015
Front Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 12;7:197
pubmed: 28018248
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018 Mar - Apr;57:106-112
pubmed: 29548497
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011 Jul;124(1):18-29
pubmed: 21261599
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;5(12):1013-1022
pubmed: 30391280
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 21;14:80
pubmed: 24951054
BJPsych Int. 2019 May;16(2):37-40
pubmed: 31144679
Nursing. 2018 Apr;48(4):55-58
pubmed: 29561371
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2019 Jun 4;:null
pubmed: 31162700