The impact of restraint reduction meetings on the use of restrictive physical interventions in <scp>E</scp>nglish residential services for children and young people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to examine the impact of post restraint reduction meetings upon the frequency and restrictiveness of restraint use in English children's residential services. BACKGROUND: Attention has been drawn to the misuse, overuse and safety of some techniques used to physically restrain children in residential services. Successful interventions to reduce restraints have been reported, mostly from the USA. RESULTS: Demonstrate a significant overall reduction in both, frequency and restrictiveness of restraints; the greatest percentage decrease in the most restrictive floor restraints. Whilst five services reduced both frequency and restrictiveness, five services showed some increases in frequency and/or restrictiveness of restraints employed. CONCLUSIONS: Restraint reduction is most effectively reduced through employing multiple strategies and that post restraint reduction meetings maybe one useful component. Organisations seeking to promote restraint reduction meetings need to allocate sufficient priority and resources to support these.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".