Aim: To investigate which formal coercive measures, (described by law), mental health patients and staff experience as least restrictive and how patients and staff rank various types of coercive measures.Methodology: The project consists of three sub studies: 1) a systematic review; 2) translation and validation of the CES questionnaire followed by a questionnaire study using the CES; and, 3) an interview study with staff.Findings (preliminary): Preliminary findings from the systematic review will presumably be available for presentation at the conference.Significance for practise: Knowledge of patients’ experiences with different coercive measures - and which of these are least restrictive - is fundamental to practicing the essence of the least restrictive alternative principle. It may also be crucial in formulating future legislation.Relevance for theme:The least restrictive alternative is a principle of health legislation. Psychiatric coercive measure use is an important human rights concern.