Background The authors of a recent systematic review concluded that the use of non-pharmacological containment methods, excluding restraint and seclusion, was not supported by evidence. Their focus on randomised, controlled trials, however, does not reflect the research that has been, or could be, conducted.

A systematic review of the published work on consumer involvement in the education of health professionals was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Searches of the CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO electronic databases returned 487 records, and 20 met the inclusion criteria. Further papers were obtained through scanning the reference lists of those articles included from the initial published work search (n = 9) and contacting researchers in the field (n = 1). Thirty papers (representing 28 studies) were included in this review. Findings from three studies indicate that consumer involvement in the education of mental health professionals is limited and variable across professions. Evaluations of consumer involvement in 16 courses suggest that students gain insight into consumers' perspectives of: (i) what life is like for people with mental illness; (ii) mental illness itself; (iii) the experiences of admission to, and treatment within, mental health services; and (iv) how these services could be improved. Some students and educators, however, raised numerous concerns about consumer involvement in education (e.g. whether consumers were pursuing their own agendas, whether consumers' views were representative). Evaluations of consumer involvement in education are limited in that their main focus is on the perceptions of students. The findings of this review suggest that public policy expectations regarding consumer involvement in mental health services appear to be slowly affecting the education of mental health professionals. Future research needs to focus on determining the effect of consumer involvement in education on the behaviours and attitudes of students in healthcare environments.

Aims To identify, from the perspectives of nurses, occupational stressors and ways in which they may be reduced. Background Nurses commonly experience high levels of occupational stress, with negative consequences for their physical and psychological health, health‐care organisations and community. There is minimal research on reducing occupational stress. Method Six focus groups were conducted with 38 registered nurses using a qualitative exploratory approach. Participants were asked to identify sources of occupational stress and possible workplace initiatives to reduce stress. Findings Sources of occupational stress were: high workloads, unavailability of doctors, unsupportive management, human resource issues, interpersonal issues, patients’ relatives, shift work, car parking, handover procedures, no common area for nurses, not progressing at work and patient mental health. Suggestions for reduction included: workload modification, non‐ward‐based initiatives, changing shift hours, forwarding suggestions for change, music, special events, organisational development, ensuring nurses get breaks, massage therapists, acknowledgement from management and leadership within wards. Conclusion The findings highlight the need to understand local perspectives and the importance of involving nurses in identifying initiatives to reduce occupational stress. Implications for nursing management Health‐care environments can be enhanced through local understanding of the occupational stressors and productively engaging nurses in developing stress reduction initiatives. Nurse managers must facilitate such processes.

People with disability experience multidimensional inequalities, which heighten their vulnerability to climate change. An understanding of the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of people with disability can be gained through considering how they have fared during the types of events associated with climate change, such as droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, and wildfires. A systematic review was conducted to identify factors associated with climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity of people with disability. Papers were sourced from 12 electronic databases, the Google search engine, the websites of 21 organizations, and the reference lists of included papers; 34 papers (relating to 28 studies) met the selection criteria. Most studies were located in the United States, and almost half were focused on hurricane events. Factors contributing to vulnerability included personal factors (e.g., female gender, uncoupled or living alone, nonwhite ethnicity, and low income), environmental factors (commonly, limited practical support from government agencies and disability organizations), bodily impairments (cognitive impairments, hearing impairments, progression of impairments, relapse/exacerbation of symptoms, and thermoregulation difficulties), and activity limitations and participation restrictions (limited preparedness, difficulties with evacuation, and difficulties reassembling individual accommodations and repairing or replacing adaptive equipment). Factors relating to their adaptive capacity included personal factors (e.g., formal education), environmental factors (practical support from mainstream organizations, disability organizations, family, and friends), and activities and participation (emergency planning, keeping an emergency pack, and seeking information). People with disability are vulnerable to climate change largely due to inequalities and their exclusion from adaptation and mitigation efforts.