↓ Skip to main content

The use of physical restraints in long-term care in Spain: a multi-center cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of physical restraints in long-term care in Spain: a multi-center cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0421-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel J. Estévez-Guerra, Emilio Fariña-López, Eduardo Núñez-González, Manuel Gandoy-Crego, Fernando Calvo-Francés, Elizabeth A. Capezuti

Abstract

Physical restraint is a procedure used frequently in long-term care. It is a controversial practice because its use is associated with numerous complications and also affects freedom and individual autonomy. The objective of this study was to examine the use of physical restraint of long-term care residents with the ability to move voluntarily. We conducted a cross-sectional observational and correlational multi-center study. Nine centers agreed to participate. Of the 1,200 people present at the time of data collection, those without voluntary movement or in the facility for less than a month were excluded. Thus, the final sample was 920 residents. Data on the use of restraints was collected by direct observation. Information about the age, gender, length of stay, falls, mobility, cognition and functional status of residents was gathered by reviewing clinical records and interviewing nursing staff. A descriptive analysis of the data obtained was conducted. The generalized linear model was used, considering only the principal effects of each variable and using the logit link function. The model has been adjusted for clusters and for other possibly confounding factors. For all analyses, a confidence interval (CI) of 95% was estimated. The prevalence of residents with at least one physical restraint was 84.9% (95% CI: 81.7-88.1), with variability between centers of 70.3 to 96.6% (p-value Kruskal Wallis test <0.001). Full-enclosure side rails were most often used (84.5; 95% CI: 81.1-87.9), but other types of restraints were also used frequently. Multivariate analysis showed that the degree of functional impairment increased the probability of the use of restraint. A significant association was also found between restraint use and the impaired cognitive status of residents. The prevalence was higher than in studies from other countries. The results emphasize the need to improve the training of nursing staff in the care of residents with impairments in functional and cognitive status. The use of alternative devices and nurse consultants need to be evaluated, and the introduction of specific laws considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 32 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,901,765
of 19,791,698 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#978
of 2,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,894
of 380,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,791,698 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 380,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them