Exploring Reasons Motivating the Use of Restraint and Seclusion by Residential Workers in Residential Treatment Centers: A Qualitative Analysis of Official Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situations where the immediate safety of children or others is at risk, residential workers are authorized to use specific measures intended as last resort, namely restraint and seclusion (R&S). This study sought to identify and detail the reasons invoked by residential workers when justifying their decision to restrain or seclude a child. Researchers reviewed and coded 628 anonymized official R&S reports written by residential workers from two different residential treatment centers over the 14 months between September 2015 and May 2017. Researchers used qualitative thematic analysis to analyze official reports. Researchers found nine reasons invoked by residential workers that they regrouped into four themes as follows: workers justified their use of R&S based on their own perceptions of 1) the danger associated with children’s affects and behaviors; 2) their obligation to yield to external constraints; 3) the benefits associated with R&S for children, and 4) the demands imposed by their professional culture. Researchers found that the reasons invoked in official reports by residential workers to justify their decisions are not always consistent with R&S as being methods of last resort. Specifically, residential workers appear to be missing the training and organizational resources needed to use alternative forms of intervention.
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 | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".