Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42212248›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026

The decision-making process leading to the use of home physical restraints: A qualitative study.

Elisa Ambrosi, Virginia Poli, Michela Filippi, Federica Canzan, Anna Brugnolli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Elisa AmbrosiDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Italy.
Virginia PoliAzienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata del Trentino, Trento, Italy.
Michela FilippiDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Italy.
Federica CanzanDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Italy.
Anna BrugnolliCenter for Medical Sciences (CISMed), University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Physical restraint is used in residential care despite not being recommended. Decision is influenced by patient characteristics, healthcare provider attitudes, with families often viewing it as a protective tool. Limited research on home care underscores the need for awareness and informed, collaborative decision-making to balance safety, autonomy, and quality of life. Methods: . A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in a primary care setting in northern Italy, to explore the use of physical restraint and the decision-making process that led to its use in home care. Twenty-five nurses employing in the involved department were recruited via convenience sampling. Data were gathered through face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured guide. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: . Use of physical restraint in home care aims to ensure patient safety, autonomy, and support caregiver respite. Decision to use physical restraint are influenced by 1) meanings and purposes of restraint, (2) patient-related factors, (3) caregiver role and needs, (4) nurse-caregiver negotiation, and (5) balancing risks, benefits, and alternatives. Conclusion: . The study highlights the complexity of physical restraint use in home care, where professional responsibility must balance with family roles and patient well-being. Supporting nurses through training, guidelines, and communication is essential to ensure patient safety and family well-being.

Indexed as

CaregiverDecision makingHome careRestraint

Identifiers

PMID42212248
PMCPMC13213783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.