Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494710›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Reducing the use of physical restraints in home care: development and feasibility testing of a multicomponent program to support the implementation of a guideline.

Sara Vandervelde, Kristien Scheepmans, Koen Milisen, Theo van Achterberg, Ellen Vlaeyen, Johan Flamaing, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Restraint Use in Aged Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sara VanderveldeKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Kristien ScheepmansKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Koen MilisenKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Theo van AchterbergKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ellen VlaeyenKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Johan FlamaingUniversity Hospital Leuven, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Bernadette Dierckx de CasterléKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Bernadette.DierckxdeCasterle@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-1887-8407

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA validated evidence-based guideline was developed to reduce physical restraint use in home care. However, the implementation of guidelines in home care is challenging. Therefore, this study aims to systematically develop and evaluate a multicomponent program for the implementation of the guideline for reducing the use of physical restraints in home care.

methodsIntervention Mapping was used to develop a multicomponent program. This method contains six steps. Each step comprises several tasks towards the design, implementation and evaluation of an intervention; which is theory and evidence informed, as well as practical. To ensure that the multicomponent program would support the implementation of the guideline in home care, a feasibility study of 8 months was organized in one primary care district in Flanders, Belgium. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design was used to evaluate the multicomponent program consisting of a knowledge test, focus groups and an online survey.

resultsThe Social Cognitive Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior are the foundations of the multicomponent program. Based on modeling, active learning, guided practice, belief selection and resistance to social pressure, eight practical applications were developed to operationalize these methods. The key components of the program are: the ambassadors for restraint-free home care (n = 15), the tutorials, the physical restraint checklist and the flyer. The results of the feasibility study show the necessity to select uniform terminology and definition for physical restraints, to involve all stakeholders from the beginning of the process, to take time for the implementation process, to select competent ambassadors and to collaborate with other home care providers.

conclusionsThe multicomponent program shows promising results. Prior to future use, further research needs to focus on the last two steps of Intervention Mapping (program implementation plan and developing an evaluation plan), to guide implementation on a larger scale and to formally evaluate the effectiveness of the multicomponent program.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesRestraint, PhysicalBelgiumFeasibility StudiesHumansNursing HomesAgedHome care servicesImplementation sciencePractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareRestraint, physical

Identifiers

PMID33494710
PMCPMC7831193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.