BACKGROUND: Involuntary psychiatric admission is associated with substantial distress, loss of autonomy, and strained therapeutic relationships for those admitted involuntarily and the healthcare professionals involved in their care. Psychosocial interventions may help mitigate these harms and support recovery, however, the literature in psychiatric inpatient settings has not been comprehensively mapped in relation to intervention characteristics, implementation, and context. AIMS: To map the published literature on psychosocial interventions for adults admitted involuntarily to psychiatric inpatient settings and to describe intervention types, delivery characteristics, reported theoretical underpinnings and stated rationales, implementation factors, outcomes assessed, and key evidence gaps. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported in line with PRISMA-ScR. Six databases and supplementary grey literature were searched to August 2025. Eligible studies included adults in psychiatric inpatient settings where more than 50% of the sample were involuntarily admitted and where psychosocial interventions of any design were reported. Interventions were categorised as direct patient, system-level, or combined approaches. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies evaluating eighteen distinct interventions were included, encompassing randomised, pre-post, quasi-experimental, mixed-methods, qualitative, and descriptive designs. Interventions were delivered across acute and forensic settings and varied considerably in content, duration, provider background, and reported theoretical underpinnings. Studies reporting more favourable outcomes in relation to patient experience, empowerment, or engagement often included lived experience involvement, trauma-informed elements, or co-produced features, although the evidence base was heterogeneous and clinical outcomes were more variable. Implementation barriers included staff shortages, organisational constraints, and difficulties integrating interventions into routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base remains limited and heterogeneous. Important gaps include cultural adaptation, family involvement, longer-term follow-up, and sustained lived-experience involvement in intervention design, delivery, evaluation, and dissemination. This review adds to existing literature by mapping intervention characteristics, implementation issues, contextual factors, and lived-experience involvement. Future research should give greater attention to co-produced, trauma-informed, and rights-based approaches in psychiatric inpatient settings involving involuntary admission.
Chúláin et al. (Sun,) studied this question.