Racial Disparities in Emergency Department Physical Restraint Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Recent studies have demonstrated that people of color are more likely to be restrained in emergency department (ED) settings compared with other patients, but many of these studies are based at a single site or health care system, limiting their generalizability. Objective: To synthesize existing literature on risk of physical restraint use in adult EDs, specifically in reference to patients of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL was performed from database inception to February 8, 2022. Study Selection: Included peer-reviewed studies met 3 criteria: (1) published in English, (2) original human participants research performed in an adult ED, and (3) reported an outcome of physical restraint use by patient race or ethnicity. Studies were excluded if they were conducted outside of the US, or if full text was unavailable. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Four independent reviewers (V.E., M.M., D.D., and A.H.) abstracted data from selected articles following Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess quality. A meta-analysis of restraint outcomes among minoritized racial and ethnic groups was performed using a random-effects model in 2022. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Risk of physical restraint use in adult ED patients by racial and ethnic background. Results: The search yielded 1597 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria (0.63%). These studies represented 2 557 983 patient encounters and 24 030 events of physical restraint (0.94%). In the meta-analysis, Black patients were more likely to be restrained compared with White patients (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.43) and to all non-Black patients (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.31). With respect to ethnicity, Hispanic patients were less likely to be restrained compared with non-Hispanic patients (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Physical restraint was uncommon, occurring in less than 1% of encounters, but adult Black patients experienced a significantly higher risk of physical restraint in ED settings compared with other racial groups. Hispanic patients were less likely to be restrained compared with non-Hispanic patients, though this observation may have occurred if Black patients, with a higher risk of restraint, were included in the non-Hispanic group. Further work, including qualitative studies, to explore and address mechanisms of racism at the interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".