ArticleBMC nursing2024
Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. 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.
- Article
- How Often Are Hospitalised Children Physically Restrained During Painful and Stressful Procedures?Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- Image recognition-based detection system for preventing accidental dislodgement of head-and-neck medical supplies in ICU patients: A feasibility randomized controlled trial.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysical restraint (PR) is used to ensure the safety of care recipients. However, this causes an ethical dilemma between the autonomy and dignity of the recipients and the provision of effective treatment by health workers. This study aimed to analyze legal and ethical situations related to the use of PR using written judgments.
methodsThis study uses a qualitative retrospective design. Qualitative content analysis was performed on South Korean written judgments. A total of 38 cases from 2015 to 2021 were categorized. The types of court decisions and ethical dilemma situations were examined according to the four principles of bioethics, and the courts' judgments were compared.
resultsWritten judgments related to PR were classified into three types according to the appropriateness of PR use, the presence or absence of duty of care, and legal negligence. Ethical dilemmas were categorized into three situations depending on whether the four principles of bioethics were followed. The courts' decisions regarding the ethical dilemmas differed depending on the situational factors before and after the use of PR and the conflicting conditions of the ethical principles.
conclusionsHealth workers should consider legal and ethical requirements when determining whether to use PR to provide the care recipient with the necessary treatment.
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.