MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors influencing decisions on seclusion and restraint

2009· article· en· W1999386710 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Larue, Alexandre Dumais, Elizabeth C. Ahern, Emmanuelle Bernheim, Marie-Pierre Mailhot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeclusionAggressionSet (abstract data type)PsychologyHealth careControl (management)PerceptionCategorizationApplied psychologyNursingMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seclusion with or without restraint is a measure for managing aggressive or agitated clients and promoting site security, particularly in an emergency psychiatric setting. The decision to control a potentially dangerous person's behaviour by removal or seclusion seems ethically justifiable in such a setting. However, although the decisions on these restrictive measures are based on rational needs, they are also influenced by the healthcare team's perceptions of the client and by the characteristics of the team and the environment. The purpose of this paper is to set out and categorize the factors in play in aggression- and agitation-management situations as perceived by the healthcare teams, particularly the nurses. The first part of the paper deals briefly with the settings in which control measures are applied in a province in eastern Canada and the effect of such measures on patients and healthcare teams. The second part identifies the factors involved in the management of agitation and aggression behaviour. The final part discusses the current spin-offs from this knowledge as well as promising paths for further research on the factors involved. The ultimate objective is to reduce recourse to coercive measures and enhance professional practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health NursingSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207