Factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review is to synthesize qualitative evidence on the views, experiences, and perspectives of service users and their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings. INTRODUCTION: Seclusion and restraint, frequently used in mental health settings, are low-value health care interventions associated with numerous negative consequences and lack of therapeutic benefits. Conceptualizing the reduction, substitution, and elimination of these low-value interventions under the lens of de-implementation offers an innovative and promising approach. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative studies exploring the views, experiences, and perspectives of adult mental health service users, their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint will be considered for inclusion. Studies conducted in inpatient general mental health settings, excluding subspecialties, will be considered. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative reviews. The databases to be searched are CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be conducted independently by 2 authors. Following a meta-aggregation approach, the data synthesis will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Model of Prevention of Seclusion and Restraint Use in Mental Health. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and confidence in the findings will be assessed using ConQual. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024586670.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".