↓ Skip to main content

Development methods of guidelines and documents with recommendations on physical restraint reduction in nursing homes: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Development methods of guidelines and documents with recommendations on physical restraint reduction in nursing homes: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0150-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph Möhler, Gabriele Meyer

Abstract

Physical restraint, e.g. bedrails or belts in beds or chairs, are commonly used in nursing homes. However, there have been reports of pronounced differences in the prevalence between different facilities. Guidelines or other documents with recommendations for clinical practice are one approach to overcome centre variation and improve the quality of care. Rigorous development methods are deemed to ensure the validity, clarity and clinical applicability of practice recommendations. This study aims at describing the development methods of documents offering recommendations on physical restraint reduction in geriatric long-term care. We performed a systematic search (February 2014) in electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Gerolit, Carelit), the World Wide Web (via google.de) and on the homepages of 34 international scientific or healthcare organisations, using various terms related to documents offering guidance for clinical practice and physical restraints. All German and English language documents with recommendations for clinical practice aimed at reducing physical restraints' in nursing homes were included. Documents targeting mental health or acute care settings were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected the documents and extracted data, using a self-developed and piloted data extraction form. We identified 28 documents from Germany, USA, Australia, Switzerland, Canada and UK, published between 2002 and 2014. The documents were developed or published by governmental organisations, nursing or healthcare organisations, non-profit organisation, research institutions and private organisations. Two documents were developed mono-disciplinary (nursing) and eight documents interdisciplinary (including different healthcare professionals, lawyers or other stakeholders). In 18 documents the composition of the development group was not described. Two documents described the methods used for developing the recommendations. In both documents, the recommendations were based on a systematic literature search, critical appraisal of the evidence and developed in a consensus process. Materials or tools supporting the implementation were mentioned in 18 documents. This review shows that most of the identified documents with recommendations to reduce physical restraints in nursing homes did not adhere to rigorous scientific development methods. Only two documents comprised a systematic literature search and critical appraisal. Guidance aimed to inform clinical practice should rely on transparent and evidence-based methodologically with sound developed recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Unknown 95 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Psychology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 28 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,828,686
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,245
of 3,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,467
of 386,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#35
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 386,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.