Restraint and Seclusion: The Perspective of Service Users and Staff Members
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
BACKGROUND: Restrictive measures may have important physical and psychological consequences on all persons involved. The current study examined how these are perceived by persons with intellectual disabilities and staff. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Interviews were conducted with eight persons with intellectual disabilities who experienced a restrictive measure and their care providers. They were queried on their understanding of the restrictive measure, its impact on the relationship, their emotions and alternative interventions. RESULTS: Restrictive measures were experienced negatively by persons with intellectual disabilities and their care providers. Service users reported feeling sad and angry, whereas staff mentioned feeling anxious. Moreover, persons with intellectual disabilities appeared to understand the goal of restrictive measures (e.g. ensuring their own and others' safety) and identified alternative interventions (e.g. speaking with a staff member or taking a walk). CONCLUSION: This study sheds further light on how persons with intellectual disabilities and staff experience the application of restrictive measures. Debriefing sessions with service users and staff may help minimize negative consequences.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it