This article explores the use of coercive measures, particularly mechanical and pharmacological restraints, in disability care settings and mental health services from a bioethical perspective, focusing on how these practices impact the human rights of individuals with mental disorder, focusing on how these practices impact the human rights of individuals with mental disorders. A robust bioethical framework is presented, advocating for principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, dignity, dialogical justice, distributive justice, and vulnerability. These principles are integrated to reframe interventions and promote respect for patient rights. The article provides a detailed account of the legal framework governing these practices in Spain, addressing both national and regional legislation, and emphasizing its significance in protecting human rights. Finally, practical recommendations are offered, which have proven effective in significantly reducing the need for coercive interventions. The article concludes by advocating for a transformation in clinical practices, promoting dignified and respectful care in line with a human rights framework, and moving away from unnecessary coercive measures.

This editorial examines the application of virtual reality (VR) training to mitigate restrictive practices (RPs) within psychiatric facilities. RPs include physical restraints, seclusion, and chemical restraints, used to ensure patient safety but with varying usage rates across regions. In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the adverse effects of RPs on both healthcare workers and patients, leading to calls for its reduction. Previous research has shown the efficiency of VR training in RP reduction. This editorial will analyze the limitations of VR training in prior research aimed at reducing RP, emphasizing that the essence of RPs is a medical safety issue, calling for careful differentiation of the causes of RPs, and avoiding the use of AR technology as a "new bottle" for "old wine" to improve the quality and reproducibility of future research in this field.

To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.

We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.

A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.

The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.