The Experience of Seclusion and Restraint in Psychiatric Settings: Perspectives of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies report that the use of seclusion and restraint (SR) is experienced negatively by patients who experience feelings of shame, helplessness, and humiliation, and may relive previous trauma events. Since 2000, in Québec, exceptional measures like SR have been framed by a protocol. This protocol provides health care teams with guidelines for relieving, containing, and reducing the suffering caused by SR. We have no knowledge, however, about the views of patients regarding application of the protocol. This study aims to understand the perception of patients regarding application of the SR protocol. For this purpose, a questionnaire was presented to patients (n = 50) who experienced an episode of SR in a psychiatric hospital in Canada. Results show that patients had a nuanced perception of SR: Some felt that SR was a helpful measure, while others felt that SR was not a helpful measure. Patients tended to agree with statements related to the comfort and safety of seclusion rooms and the meeting of their physical needs. Regarding support, they suggested relational, drug, and environmental interventions to prevent seclusion. Finally, nearly all patients perceived that the health care team did not follow-up with the patients after the experience; such follow-up is essential for reconstructing a sometimes confusing event.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".