MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coercive measures by Ontario forensic hospitals.

2025· other· en· W6960667950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeclusionAggressionMental healthNeurocognitiveOddsForensic psychiatryOccupational safety and healthPoison controlLogistic regressionInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div> The use of coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint in forensic mental healthcare settings is widespread but controversial. Efforts to reduce these measures require knowledge of patient-related risk factors. The present study aimed to identify and confirm factors related to seclusion and restraint that can be assessed upon admission among men and women admitted to forensic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We included cross-sectional Ontario Mental Health Reporting System admission data for adult patients admitted to 10 forensic psychiatric hospitals between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2023. We determined patient demographic, administrative, and clinical characteristics associated with seclusion and physical and manual restraint episodes during the first three days of admission. We conducted logistic Generalized Linear mixed Models (GLMM) to examine the association between the independent variables and restraint and seclusion while accounting for variability across facilities. Of 7635 patients, 30.2% (n = 2302) were secluded, and 3.7% (n = 286) were restrained within their first three days of admission. Secluded patients were more likely to be young adults, male, and scored higher on violence and aggression measures. Being admitted due to fitness-related reasons, lack of insight, medication non-adherence, higher scores on the mania scale and cognitive impairment further contributed to the higher odds of being secluded, whereas neurocognitive disorder diagnosis and elopement behavior were protective factors. Restrained patients were also more likely to be young adults, have a diagnosis of mood or anxiety, neurodevelopmental or personality disorder, and scored higher on violence and aggression measures. Fitness-related status, medication non-adherence, and cognitive impairment further contributed to this model of restraint. Indigenous self-identification and immigration status were not significant contributors to either model. Clinicians can assess indicators associated with seclusion and restraint when forensic patients are admitted to forensic hospitals or during the first three days of their stay, enabling effective targeting of those needs to reduce the use of coercive measures. </div>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5400.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207