ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Between Restrictive and Supportive Devices in the Context of Physical Restraints: Findings from a Large Mixed-Method Study Design.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic scoping review and interpretive ethical synthesis of ethical decision-making about physical restraints for older adults in Confucian-influenced care contexts.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The decision-making process leading to the use of home physical restraints: A qualitative study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Consumer Products Nerve Injuries Among Patients Products Presenting to United States Emergency Departments Between 2012 and 2021: A Nationwide Cohort.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2025Article
- Nursing Ethical Decision Making on Adult Physical Restraint: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- [Nursing Students' Experiences of Observing the Use of Physical Restraints: A Qualitative Study].Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing · 2023Article
- Physical Restraint Use in Nursing Homes-Regional Variances and Ethical Considerations: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Coming to Grips-How Nurses Deal With Restlessness, Confusion, and Physical Restraints on a Neurological/Neurosurgical Ward.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical restraints are still a common problem across healthcare settings: they are triggered by patient-related factors, nurses, and context-related factors. However, the role of some devices (e.g., bed rails), and those applied according to relatives'/patients' requests have been little investigated to date. A mixed-method study in 2018, according to the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study criteria was performed. In the quantitative phase, patients with one or more physical restraint(s) as detected through observation of a single index day in 37 Italian facilities (27 long-term, 10 hospital units, =4562 patients) were identified. Then, for each patient with one or more restraint(s), the nurse responsible was interviewed to gather purposes and reasons for physical restraints use. A thematic analysis of the narratives was conducted to (a) clarify the decision-making framework that had been used and (b) to assess the differences, if any, between hospital and long-term settings. The categories 'Restrictive' and 'Supportive' devices aimed at 'Preventing risks' and at 'Promoting support', respectively, have emerged. Reasons triggering 'restrictive devices' involved patients' risks, the health professionals' and/or the relatives' concerns. In contrast, the 'supportive' ones were triggered by patients' problems/needs. 'Restrictive' and 'Supportive' devices were applied based on the decision of the team or through a process of shared decision-making involving relatives and patients. According to the framework that emerged, long-term care patients are at increased risk of being treated with 'restrictive devices' (Odds Ratio 1.87, Confidence Interval 95% 1.44; 2.43;
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.