The ICS has demonstrated promise as a tool for measuring patients' evaluations of their hospital experience and individuality in care.

Patients' basic needs have to be met, and patient-staff interaction has to also continue during seclusion/restraint. Providing patients with meaningful activities, planning beforehand, documenting the patients' wishes, and making patient-staff agreements reduce the need for restrictions and offer alternatives for seclusion/restraint. Service users must be involved in all practical development.

This paper describes a preliminary study in which an instrument was developed for the measurement of individual care in adult patients and in which the reliability and validity of the instrument were evaluated. Individual care was defined in terms of how patient individuality was taken into account and how patient participation in decision-making was facilitated. The purpose here is to describe the process by which the individual care instrument (IC) was developed, the preliminary testing of the instrument and psychometric evaluation of the instrument in a sample of adult patients discharged from a Finnish general Hospital (n=203). Item analyses showed an acceptable level of internal consistency reliability and homogeneity in each scale of the IC, and Cronbach alpha values were high in every measurement. Exploratory factor analysis supported a three-factor solution. The psychometric evaluations suggested that the instrument is worthy of further development.

The model has been found to capture attributes that characterize individualized care. It can be used as a basis for evaluation in clinical nursing practice from patients' point of view. The study highlights the importance of patients' clinical situation, personal life situation and decisional control as predictors of individualized care. The results also confirm the construct validity of the previously developed Individualized Care Scale.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

AimsIn the past few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of forcibly displaced migrants worldwide, of which a substantial proportion is refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers may experience high levels of psychological distress, and show high rates of mental health conditions. It is therefore timely and particularly relevant to assess whether current evidence supports the provision of psychosocial interventions for this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions compared with control conditions (treatment as usual/no treatment, waiting list, psychological placebo) aimed at reducing mental health problems in distressed refugees and asylum seekers.MethodsWe used Cochrane procedures for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in adults and children asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety symptoms at post-intervention were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include: PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, functioning, quality of life and dropouts due to any reason.ResultsWe included 26 studies with 1959 participants. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that psychosocial interventions have a clinically significant beneficial effect on PTSD (standardised mean difference [SMD] = −0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.01 to −0.41; I2 = 83%; 95% CI 78–88; 20 studies, 1370 participants; moderate quality evidence), depression (SMD = −1.02; 95% CI −1.52 to −0.51; I2 = 89%; 95% CI 82–93; 12 studies, 844 participants; moderate quality evidence) and anxiety outcomes (SMD = −1.05; 95% CI −1.55 to −0.56; I2 = 87%; 95% CI 79–92; 11 studies, 815 participants; moderate quality evidence). This beneficial effect was maintained at 1 month or longer follow-up, which is extremely important for populations exposed to ongoing post-migration stressors. For the other secondary outcomes, we identified a non-significant trend in favour of psychosocial interventions. Most evidence supported interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma-focused component. Limitations of this review include the limited number of studies collected, with a relatively low total number of participants, and the limited available data for positive outcomes like functioning and quality of life.ConclusionsConsidering the epidemiological relevance of psychological distress and mental health conditions in refugees and asylum seekers, and in view of the existing data on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, these interventions should be routinely made available as part of the health care of distressed refugees and asylum seekers. Evidence-based guidelines and implementation packages should be developed accordingly.