ArticlePloS one2022
What factors contribute to the need for physical restraint in institutionalized residents in Taiwan?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and Multidimensional Verification of Clinical Practice Standards for Physical Restraint: A Four-Year Retrospective Quality Improvement Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of Clinical Practice Standards for Physical Restraint in Hospitalized Patients: A Multi-Method Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- The relation between resident-related factors and care problems in nursing homes: a multi-level analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Taiwan, physical restraint is commonly used in institutions to protect residents from falling or injury. However, physical restraint should be used cautiously to avoid side effects, such as worse cognition, mobility, depression, and even death.
objectivesTo identify the rate of physical restraint and the associated risk factors in institutionalized residents in Taiwan.
methodsA community-based epidemiological survey was conducted from July 2019 to February 2020 across 266 residential institutions. Among the estimated 6,549 residents being surveyed, a total of 5,752 finished the study. The questionnaires were completed by residents, his/her family or social workers. The cognition tests were conducted by specialists and a multilevel analysis approach was used to identify cognition/disability/medical history/special nursing care/BPSD risk factors for physical restraints.
resultsOf the 5,752 included institutionalized residents, 30.2% (1,737) had been previously restrained. Older age, lower education level, lower cognitive function, higher dependence, residents with cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary disease, dementia, and intractable epilepsy, all contributed to a higher physical restraint rate, while orthopedic disease and spinal cord injury were associated with a lower physical restraint rate. Furthermore, residents with special nursing care had a higher restraint rate. Residents with most of the behavior and psychological symptoms were also associated with an increased restraint rate.
conclusionsWe studied the rate of physical restraint and associated risk factors in institutionalized residents in Taiwan. The benefits and risks of physical restraint should be evaluated before application, and adjusted according to different clinical situations.
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.