A hermeneutic phenomenological exploration of ‘last resort’ in the use of restraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restraining patients is a practice that dates back at least three centuries. In recent years, there has been a mandate and advocacy in various countries for organizations to shift towards the minimization of restraint, whereby its use is only as a 'last resort'. There is growing evidence internationally indicating the negative impact of the use of restraint. However, to date there is no research specifically focusing on trying to understand the concept of 'last resort'. Further insights to explore this concept among mental health nurses are therefore warranted. The empirical research comprised a hermeneutic phenomenological study. By recruiting and interviewing thirteen mental health nurses from across Canada who had experiences of restraint use, the research aimed to generate a deeper understanding of the meanings and lived experiences of the concept of 'last resort'. Data were collected through fifteen in-depth interviews. Data analysis was undertaken through a hermeneutic phenomenological framework based on van Manen's approach and Heideggerian philosophy. Five Heideggerian concepts were used to illuminate 'last resort' in restraint use by mental health nurses - temporality, inauthenticity, thrownness, leaping in and leaping ahead, and mood (fear). Key findings highlight the influence of nurses' past experiences, how nursing staff adopt a collective (rather than individual) approach, and the dependency on knowledge and skills of others in using restraint as a 'last resort'. Overall, the lived experience of 'last resort' is comprised of many elements. This study provides insights and an initial understanding, which is hoped to advance the field of restraint minimization.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".