ArticleNursing open2021
A cross-sectional study on nurses' attitudes towards physical restraints use in nursing homes in Portugal.
Article in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The optimal intervention for preventing physical restraints among older adults living in the nursing home: A systematic review.Nursing open · 2023Pooled it
- A Risk Prediction Model for Physical Restraints Among Older Chinese Adults in Long-term Care Facilities: Machine Learning Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Association of surveillance technology and staff opinions with physical restraint use in nursing homes: Cross-sectional study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022Article
- Attitudes of Nursing Staff in Hospitals towards Restraint Use: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Difference of Physical Restraint Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice Between Nurses and Nursing Assistants in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Between Restrictive and Supportive Devices in the Context of Physical Restraints: Findings from a Large Mixed-Method Study Design.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A cross-sectional study on nurses' attitudes towards physical restraints use in nursing homes in Portugal.Nursing open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore nurses' opinions regarding restraint measures and attitudes towards physical restraints use in nursing homes.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsNursing staff of 33 Portuguese nursing homes was asked to complete the Portuguese version of the Maastricht Attitude Questionnaire (MAQ), an instrument on attitudes regarding physical restraints (reasons, consequences and appropriateness of restraint use) and opinions about restraint measures (restrictiveness and discomfort). Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were performed.
resultsData from 186 nurses were included in the analysis. Overall, nurses expressed neutral to moderately positive attitudes towards physical restraints usage. Nurses with longer professional experience reported a more positive attitude regarding the appropriateness of restraint use in their clinical practice. Wrist and ankle restraints were the measures that nurses reported feeling most uncomfortable using, and the most restrictive. Bilateral bedrails were globally assessed as a slightly restrictive measure and nurses reported not feeling uncomfortable using them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.