van Doeselaar Marjan, Sleegers Peter, Hutschemaekers Giel
Gelderse Roos Research Institute for Professionalization, Wolfheze, The Netherlands.
Psychiatr Q. 2008 Jun;79(2):97-109. doi: 10.1007/s11126-007-9063-x. Epub 2008 Jan 3.
Despite public opinion and policy interventions, restraint remains a common practice. This is also the case in the Netherlands, where projects aimed to reduce seclusion, have not led to a decreased use of restraint. Is this lack of effectiveness related to attitudes of the professionals? The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes of professionals working in mental health care toward restraint.
A questionnaire with eight scales was constructed for measuring attitudes of professionals. Scores of 540 professionals were studied, using analysis of variance and cluster analysis and related to several personnel and organizational characteristics.
The more professionals were personally involved in seclusion, the more they believed in it. Three types of professionals were identified: Transformers, Doubters and Maintainers. More than half of the psychiatrists (56%) belonged to the type of maintainers. Nurses were more divided.
Professionals working in clinical settings are not really opposed to restraint. This could explain the limited effects of innovation projects.
尽管有公众舆论和政策干预，但约束措施仍然是一种常见的做法。荷兰的情况也是如此，在荷兰，旨在减少隔离使用的项目并未导致约束措施使用的减少。这种缺乏有效性是否与专业人员的态度有关？本研究的目的是探讨精神卫生保健专业人员对约束措施的态度。
构建了一个包含八个量表的问卷，用于测量专业人员的态度。对540名专业人员的得分进行了研究，采用方差分析和聚类分析，并与若干人员和组织特征相关联。
专业人员个人参与隔离的程度越高，他们对隔离的信任度就越高。确定了三种类型的专业人员：转变者、怀疑者和维持者。超过一半的精神科医生（56%）属于维持者类型。护士的分布更为分散。
在临床环境中工作的专业人员并非真正反对约束措施。这可以解释创新项目效果有限的原因。
