« C’est possible », réduire la coercition dans les soins pour les personnes adultes vivant avec des troubles neurodéveloppementaux : une étude à devis mixte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adults living with a neurodevelopmental disorder may present episodes of aggression, which may lead to the use of seclusion or restraint. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of an intervention aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in a long-term care unit for adults suffering from a neurodevelopmental disorder with or without psychiatric co-morbidities. METHOD: The single-center study used a sequential mixed-methods explanatory design. Retrospective data on periods of seclusion, with and without physical restraint, were collected for the ten-month pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. A qualitative survey was conducted at the end of the intervention period among the health professionals working in the unit to review the implementation and the efficiency of the approach. RESULTS: A significant decrease was observed between the pre- and post-intervention period in the number of seclusion and restraint sequences, the number of patients experiencing seclusion and restraint, and the duration of seclusion and restraint sequences. The efficiency of the approach was confirmed by the health care professionals and was attributed to leadership focused on limiting coercive measures, better adherence to legal obligations, team cohesion, and the implementation of alternative tools and methods. DISCUSSION: Reducing the use of coercive measures with adults with neurodevelopmental disorders is possible. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of alternative strategies to seclusion and restraint.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".