Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36721889›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2023

Decision-making and best practice when nasogastric tube feeding under restraint: multi-informant qualitative study.

Sarah J Fuller, Jacinta Tan, Dasha Nicholls

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah J FullerDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK; and East London NHS Foundation Trust, Bedford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2863-158X
Jacinta TanUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dasha NichollsDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7257-6605
East London NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians working in mental health in-patient settings may have to use nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint to reverse the life-threatening consequences of malnutrition when this is driven by a psychiatric condition such as a restrictive eating disorder.

aimsTo understand the decision-making process when nasogastric tube feeding under restraint is initiated in mental health in-patient settings.

methodPeople with lived experience of nasogastric tube feeding under restraint and parents/carers were recruited via the website of the UK's eating disorder charity BEAT. Eating disorder clinicians were recruited via an online post by the British Eating Disorders Society. Semi-structured interviews were administered to all participants.

resultsThemes overlapped between the participant groups and were integrated in the final analysis. Two main themes were generated: first, 'quick decisions', with the subthemes of 'medical risk', 'impact of not eating' and 'limited discussions'; second, 'slow decisions', with subthemes of 'threats', 'discussions with patient', 'not giving up' and 'advanced directives'. Benefits and harms of both quick and slow decisions were identified.

conclusionsThis research offers a new perspective regarding how clinical teams can make best practice decisions regarding initiating nasogastric feeding under restraint. In-patient mental health teams facilitating this clinical intervention should consider discussing it with the patient at the beginning of their admission in anticipation of the need for emergency intervention and in full collaboration with the multidisciplinary team.

Indexed as

eating disordersNasogastric feedingphysical restraintqualitative researchrestrictive practices

Identifiers

PMID36721889
PMCPMC9970178
OpenAlexW4318755533

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.