The Acceptability of Physical Restraint Procedures for People with a Learning Difficulty

McDonnell, Andrew; Sturmey, Peter; B, Dearden

doi:10.1017/s135246580001050x

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, we addressed this matter by assessing the social validity of PR among parents-guardians of adults who had ID. As noted previously, acceptance and satisfaction are critical measures when evaluating an intervention such as PR but have been infrequently reported (Cunningham et al 2003;Luiselli et al 2015;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993). The present study adds to this limited literature and to our knowledge is the first social validity assessment of PR conducted with parents-guardians.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We constructed a social validity questionnaire with reference to previous research targeting PR (Cunningham et al 2003;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993) and adapted from the Luiselli et al (2015) assessment protocol. The questionnaire had four domains categorized as (a) rationale justification, (b) training, (c) implementation, and (d) effectiveness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Referencing PR specifically, McDonnell et al (1993) found that high school and college students rated chair restraint more favorably than two types of floor restraint for individuals who had developmental disabilities. A study by McDonnell and Sturmey (2000) reported the same results with (a) special education practitioners at schools for students with developmental disabilities, (b) residential-care staff within hospital and community settings serving people with ID, and (c) high school pupils with no experience caring for people with developmental disabilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the previously cited research concentrated on the method of restraint (Cunningham et al 2003;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993), Luiselli et al (2015) assessed opinions about the rationale justification, training, safety, and implementation effectiveness of PR. The results indicated consistently high approval and acceptability within these four domains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Luiselli¹,

Sperry²,

Draper³

et al. 2017

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents-guardians of adults who had intellectual disability completed a social validity assessment that documented their attitudes and opinions about physical restraint. Both parents-guardians of adults that had and had not experienced physical restraint rated most highly that (a) physical restraint should only be used if less intensive procedures have failed and (b) physical restraint can be adapted to ensure safety and reduce risk of harm. They endorsed less favorably that effective use of physical restraint makes it possible for individuals to progress and achieve a better quality of life. The parents-guardians of adults that had not experienced physical restraint differed from the parents-guardians of adults with a physical restraint history in acceptance of physical restraint to ensure safety of their family member. We discuss these findings and implications for habilitation services programs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Luiselli¹,

Sperry²,

Draper³

et al. 2017

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within dentistry this inventory has been used to evaluate interventions for people with dental phobia (26,27); and behavioural management techniques in children (28). Outside the field of dentistry the scale has been used to evaluate interventions for people with mental retardation (29), children and adolescents with behaviour problems (22,23) and youth with eating disorders (30,31). It has been demonstrated to show good internal consistency and criterion related validity in both the full 19 item form and in several short forms including the 6 item form to be used in this study (32,33).…”

Section: The Treatment Evaluation Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The perceived acceptability of the DEPPA patient assessment tool: A questionnaire survey of Denplan Excel patients

Newton

Asimakopoulou

2017

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To establish the perceived acceptability of the use of the Denplan/Previser Patient Assessment tool (DEPPA) by patients. The secondary aim was to examine dental practitioners' views about the effects of a DEPPA consultation on patients' future oral health behaviours.Method: Two questionnaire surveys: 365 patients attending general dental practice, who had been assessed using the DEPPA software; 12 dental practitioners who had completed a DEPPA assessment on the patients. Participants (both patients and GDPs) completed the Treatment EvaluationInventory (TEI) to ascertain their views of the DEPPA assessment.Findings: The overall mean for the Treatment Evaluation Instrument for the patients was 23.81 (SD 5.08), and for GDPs 23.81 (SD 2.99).Conclusion: Participants expressed a high level of expressed acceptability of the DEPPA tool. In particular, the tool is seen as enhancing the relationship between the patient and practitioner and providing information to support behaviour change. 3The Denplan/Previser Patient Assessment tool (DEPPA, 1) is an online tool for the assessment of patients in Denplan Excel accredited practices. It seeks to assess the risk of future disease on the basis of risk factors identified from the patient's medical history, dental history, lifestyle and current clinical condition. DEPPA also produces a score to indicate the patient's current state of oral health. The programme benefits from extensive empirical validation of its evidence based algorithms (2). The disease risk DEPPA provides is personalised, uses risk scores and can incorporate graphs and as such, is set to communicate disease risk using the best available evidence. A recent review of risk assessment tools for periodontal disease (3) identified that five such instruments exist, and further that risk assessment tools such as DEPPA can be used to predict future deterioration in periodontal health in the absence of treatment. However there is little published literature on the effect of risk communication on patient behaviour, and the acceptability of such measure to patients and dental practitioners. Risk communication of future disease has a long research tradition (4-7).What is clear is that healthcare professionals and patients alike have difficulties conveying and understanding risk information, especially when such information is communicated in general ways (e.g. "you are at risk for gum disease') and uses long future time-frames (8,9). It is now accepted that where disease risk communication takes place this information should be tailored to the individual and communicated using simple risk scores and graphs (6). with care. Though it has been argued that the concept of 'satisfaction' was often used uncritically and without an analysis of the theoretical basis for the construct (11). Furthermore, a review of patient satisfaction studies in dentistry undertaken by Newsome and Wright (12,13) identified that there was a lack of psychometrically sound measures of patient satisfaction with dental services; most studie...

show abstract

Research and Development

Sturmey

Taylor

Lindsay

2004

Offenders With Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Acceptability of Physical Restraint Procedures for People with a Learning Difficulty

Cited by 32 publications

References 11 publications

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

The perceived acceptability of the DEPPA patient assessment tool: A questionnaire survey of Denplan Excel patients

Research and Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About