The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Physical and Pharmacological Restraints in Hospital Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00921 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendy de Bruijn, Joost G. Daams, Florian J. G. van Hunnik, Arend J. Arends, A. M. Boelens, Ellen M. Bosnak, Julie Meerveld, Ben Roelands, Barbara C. van Munster, Bas Verwey, Martijn Figee, Sophia E. de Rooij, Roel J. T. Mocking |
| Abstract |
Physical and pharmacological restraints, defined as all measures limiting a person in his or her freedom, are extensively used to handle unsafe or problematic behavior in hospital care. There are increasing concerns as to the extent with which these restraints are being used in hospitals, and whether their benefits outweigh their potential harm. There is currently no comprehensive literature overview on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of the use of physical and pharmacological restraints in the hospital setting. A systematic review of the existing literature will be performed on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of physical and pharmacological restraints in the hospital setting. Relevant databases will be systematically searched. A dedicated search strategy was composed. A visualization of similarities (VOS) analysis was used to further specify the search. Observational studies, and if available, randomized controlled trials reporting on beneficial and/or adverse effects of physical and/or pharmacological restraints in the general hospital setting will be included. Data from included articles will be extracted and analyzed. If the data is suitable for quantitative analysis, meta-analysis will be applied. This review will provide data on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of the use of physical and pharmacological restraints in hospital care. With this review we aim to guide health professionals by providing a critique of the available evidence regarding their choice to either apply or withhold from using restraints. A limitation of the current review will be that we will not specifically address ethical aspects of restraint use. Nevertheless, the outcomes of our systematic review can be used in the composition of a multidisciplinary guideline. Furthermore, our systematic review might determine knowledge gaps in the evidence, and recommendations on how to target these gaps with future research. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019116186. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 March 2020.
All research outputs
#18,968,282
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#7,245
of 10,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,313
of 360,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#253
of 334 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 360,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 334 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.