Convergence and divergence: An analysis of mechanical restraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric nurses are regularly confronted with the uses and effects of control interventions such as mechanical restraints. Although there are evident tensions in the literature regarding the use of mechanical restraints, very little research has focused on the lived and embodied experience of their use, whether from the patient's perspective or the perspective of nursing staff responsible for their application. RESEARCH AIMS: (1) to gain access to the bodily phenomenon of being placed in mechanical restraints; (2) to give voice to the intimate experiential understanding of this experience; and (3) through phenomenological interpretation, to understand the subjective processes and meaning-making of this experience. RESEARCH DESIGN: For this research, we adopted a distinctly ethics-oriented application of the methodology known as interpretative phenomenological analysis, that is, the interpretive dimension of the research focused on ethical practice in mental healthcare - one that is informed by experiential accounts of the lived body. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: A total of 40 in-depth semi-structured, nondirected interviews with both nurses (n = 21) and patients (n = 19) we conducted to meet the aims of this article. Participants were recruited from an inpatient psychiatric unit of a Canadian general hospital. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The research received research ethics board clearance from both the hospital where the study took place and the University of Ottawa. FINDINGS: The comparative analysis is presented under the following headings: (1) context of care, (2) meaning of quality of care, (3) emotional reactions and nurse-patient relationship, (4) meeting the needs and (5) need for alternatives. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The research findings are discussed in light of current literature and implications for practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".