The Use of Restraint and Seclusion in Residential Treatment Care for Youth: A Systematic Review of Related Factors and Interventions
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
Children placed in residential treatment centers (RTCs) typically present challenging behavior including aggression. In this context, restraint and seclusion (R&S) are seen as "last resort" strategies for educators to manage youth aggression. The use of R&S is controversial, as they can lead to psychological and physical consequences for both the client and the care provider and have yet to be empirically validated as therapeutic. The objectives of this systematic review are to identify the factors related to R&S use in RTCs for youth and to review the interventions aiming to reduce the use of R&S. The identification of these factors is the first step to gaining a better understanding of the decision-making process leading to the use of R&S and ultimately to reducing the use of these strategies to a minimum. Thus, the present systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and PsycNET for articles published between 2002 and 2017. Key words used were synonyms of R&S, youth, and RTCs. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria: must report on factors affecting the use of R&S in RTCs, must be conducted in RTCs for youth under the age of 21, and must report on original and empirical data. Factors related to the characteristics of the client, the care provider, and the environment, as well as to the implementation of programs for the reduction of R&S, were found to influence the use of R&S in RTCs. A conceptual model is presented. The implementation of programs to reduce R&S use is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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