ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Disparities in Physical Restraints and Antipsychotic use in Hospitalized Patients with Limited English Proficiency.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical restraints and antipsychotics should only be used as a last resort in hospitalized individuals at risk of harm to themselves or others. Since verbal reorientation and de-escalation are first-line management in these scenarios, patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) may be at higher risk of physical restraint and antipsychotic use. We aimed to examine the relationship between English proficiency, physical restraints, and antipsychotic use in hospitalized adults.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of adults discharged from an academic medical center between 1/2019 and 6/2023. LEP was defined by non-English primary language listed in the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was use of either physical restraints or antipsychotics during the hospitalization, defined by orders and pharmacy charges, respectively. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to examine the relationship between primary language and outcomes, controlling for demographic, hospitalization, and clinical characteristics.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 132,767 hospitalizations (mean age 62.9 years, 48.3% female, 10.8% with LEP). Either physical restraints or antipsychotics were used in 14,802 (11.2%) hospitalizations. Unadjusted outcome rates in LEP and non-LEP groups were similar (10.1% vs. 11.3% for either physical restraints or antipsychotics, 7.9% vs. 8.9% for physical restraints, and 4.9% vs. 4.9% for antipsychotics). However, LEP patients had higher adjusted odds of either physical restraint or antipsychotic use (aOR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28), physical restraint use (aOR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17-1.43), and antipsychotic use (aOR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). Subgroup analysis among patients with diagnosed delirium revealed an even stronger association between LEP and the primary outcome (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.22-1.65).
conclusionThis single center study found language-based disparities in orders for physical restraints and antipsychotics among hospitalized patients. Given the potential risks associated with both physical restraints and antipsychotics, causes and mitigators of this disparity should be investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42260183What 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.