Impact of Risperidone on Seclusion and Restraint at a State Psychiatric Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of risperidone on seclusion and restraint in patients at a state psychiatric facility, shortly after risperidone's release. METHODS: Patients who were in the hospital for at least 3 months prior to receiving risperidone and subsequently received risperidone for at least 3 months formed the cohort. A mirror-image design was used with duration to a maximum of 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of risperidone. The hospital population that did not receive either risperidone or clozapine during the same time period was used for comparison of trends of seclusion and restraint. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (most with schizophrenia) met the inclusion criteria of the risperidone group. There were statistically significant decreases in the number of seclusion hours (2.2 [SD 5.5] to 0.26 [SD 0.06]) and of events (0.23 [SD 0.59] to 0.05 [SD 0.14]) per person per month during risperidone treatment, compared with the prerisperidone treatment period (P = 0.01). The comparison group also evidenced decreases on these measures during the same time period, but the risperidone-treated cohort achieved a proportionally greater reduction. There were similar trends toward reduction in the restraint measures during risperidone treatment compared with prerisperidone, but these did not achieve statistical significance. The comparison group also showed slightly decreased use of restraints over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone appears to have had a positive impact on seclusion in this state-hospital psychiatric population. These data support the positive impact of risperidone on violence found in other studies. Violence and aggression are major factors that affect morale among psychiatric patients and staff. So, any benefit in this regard as a result of antipsychotic drug treatment is salutary for patients, families, and health care providers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".