Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886489›Full record

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.

Alvisa Palese, Jessica Longhini, Angela Businarolo, Tiziana Piccin, Giuliana Pitacco, Livia Bicego

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nursing Ethical Decision Making on Adult Physical Restraint: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alvisa PaleseDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3508-844X
Jessica LonghiniDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Angela BusinaroloDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Tiziana PiccinDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Giuliana PitaccoEthics Management for Clinical Practice Area, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Giuliano Isontina, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Livia BicegoIRCCS Burlo Garofolo, 34137 Trieste, Italy.
University of Udine · ITAzienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Trieste · ITIRCCS Materno Infantile Burlo Garofolo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Long-Term CareRestraint, PhysicalHealth ServicesHospitalsHumansResearch Designhospitallong-term carenursingnursing homephysical devicephysical restraint

Identifiers

PMID34886489
PMCPMC8657237
OpenAlexW4200120064

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.