Aims.: There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.Methods.: In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.Results.: In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.Conclusions.: There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

Background: Involving young people in co-designing and conducting youth mental health research is essential to ensure research is relevant and responsive to the needs of young people. Despite this, many barriers exist to meaningful involvement. Aims: To explore the experiences, barriers and enablers to partnering with young people for mental health research. Methods: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 researchers employed at a youth mental health research institute in Australia. Thematic analysis was used to analyse these data. Results: How researchers conceptualise youth participation was related to how confident and competent they felt engaging with young people. Attitudes and beliefs about the impact of youth participation on research quality were related to emotional factors, such as feelings of anxiety or excitement. Whether researchers engaged in youth participation was affected by resources, culture and the structures that their organisation had in place. Conclusion: Researchers generally want to engage young people in their work, but several factors can hinder this. By understanding the challenges facing researchers, and drawing on the factors that encourage and support those already engaging with young people, a framework to support genuine and meaningful youth participation in mental health research can be developed.

People with mental illness and substance use disorder are over-represented in prisons. Injury-related mortality is elevated in people released from prison, and both mental illness and substance use disorder are risk factors for injury. Effective care coordination during the transition between criminal justice and community service providers improves health outcomes for people released from prison. However, the health outcomes and support needs of people with dual diagnosis (co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder) released from prison are poorly understood. Here we aim to examine the association between dual diagnosis and non-fatal injury in adults released from prison. Pre-release interview data collected between Aug 1, 2008, and July 31, 2010, from a representative sample of sentenced adults (≥18 years) in Queensland, Australia, were linked, retrospectively and prospectively, to person-level, state-wide emergency department and hospital records. We identified dual diagnoses from inpatient, emergency department, and prison medical records. We modelled the association between mental health status and all injury resulting in hospital contact by fitting a multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for sociodemographic, health, and criminogenic covariates, and replacing missing covariate data by multiple imputation. In 1307 adults released from prison, there were 2056 person-years of follow-up (median 495 days, IQR 163-958). The crude injury rates were 996 (95% CI 893-1112) per 1000 person-years for the dual diagnosis group, 538 (441-657) per 1000 person-years for the mental illness only group, 413 (354-482) per 1000 person-years for the substance use disorder only group, and 275 (247-307) per 1000 person-years for the no mental disorder group. After adjusting for model covariates, the dual diagnosis (adjusted hazard rate ratio 3·27, 95% CI 2·30-4·64; p<0·0001) and mental illness only (1·87, 1·19-2·95; p=0·0071) groups were at increased risk of injury after release from prison compared with the group with no mental health disorders. People released from prison experience high rates of injury compared with the general population. Among people released from prison, dual diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of injury. Contact with the criminal justice system is a key opportunity to prevent subsequent injury morbidity in people with co-occurring mental health disorders. Engagement with integrated psychiatric and addiction treatment delivered without interruption during the transition from prison into the community might prevent the injury-related disparities experienced by this vulnerable group. The development of targeted injury prevention strategies for people with dual diagnosis released from prison is warranted. National Health and Medical Research Council.

Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person’s behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint. The 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes. Six themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and ‘othering’, and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma. Focus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person's wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past 30 years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.