Two-Year Trends in the Use of Seclusion and Restraint Among Psychiatrically Hospitalized Youths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined characteristics associated with the use of seclusion and restraint among 442 psychiatrically hospitalized youths and sought to quantify changing trends in the rates of these modalities of treatment over time after the 1999 implementation of federal regulations and an institutional performance improvement program. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data related to all 5,929 incidents of seclusion and restraint that occurred during 2000 and 2001 at a child and adolescent state psychiatric hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: The two-year prevalence of use of seclusion was 61 percent and of restraint was 49 percent. Children and adolescents who were admitted on an emergency basis and those belonging to ethnic minority groups were more likely to undergo seclusion or restraint. Children aged 11 years and younger were more likely to undergo seclusion. The total number of episodes decreased by 26 percent and their cumulative duration decreased by 38 percent between the first quarter of 2000 and the last quarter of 2001. The decreases were the result of fewer seclusion and restraint incidents as well as shorter episodes of restraint. Over time, a concurrent increase was observed in the proportion of episodes associated with patient (but not staff) injuries and with as-needed use of medications. CONCLUSIONS: National reforms and institutional efforts can lead to downward trends in the use of seclusion and restraint among psychiatrically hospitalized youths. The active elements of these interventions warrant further study and replication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".