A narrative review of the effectiveness of aggression management training programs for psychiatric hospital staff
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Workplace violence, including patient-perpetrated violence in healthcare settings, is increasingly being recognized as preventable. Staff training has been identified as a necessary component of any initiative aimed at preventing or reducing incidents of aggression and violence in the workplace. This narrative review of the literature evaluates the effectiveness of staff training programs designed to prevent and manage violence and aggression in psychiatric hospitals. An exhaustive review of the literature was performed on all articles published in English between January 1, 1990 and April 1, 2007 that evaluate an aggression management training program. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for a full review and were summarized using a qualitative narrative approach. Aggression management training has been proven effective in some areas, such as reducing the use of restraints and other coercive control devices, but more methodologically rigorous research is needed to firmly establish whether it is effective in reducing aggression and staff injuries. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study suggest that relying too heavily on aggression management staff training will have limited effect on addressing the range of issues related to patient-perpetrated violence in psychiatric hospitals. Mental healthcare organizations must look beyond staff training if they are to achieve meaningful reductions in aggressive incidents and staff injuries.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it