RESUMEN
Holding and restraining children during non-urgent clinical procedures continues to be surrounded by uncertainty and mired in controversy. This review aimed to locate, appraise and map the evidence related to health professionals reported and observed practice of holding and restraining children, from birth to 16 years, for clinical procedures. This scoping review, conducted in April 2022, was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol. Screening and full text review resulted in the inclusion of 30 papers. In total, 14 different terms were used to refer to the act of holding or restraining a child for a procedure, in many papers the action of holding was not defined. Professionals report the main factors influencing their decisions to use restraint and/or holding were the age of a child, with younger children being restrained or held most frequently; a child's behaviour; and concerns around a child's safety. Professionals also report that they can perceive pressure from parent/carers to hold or restrain their child and describe how holding practices can be influenced by service and organisational pressures. Health professionals, mainly nurses, continue to report ethical and moral tensions linked to their involvement in the restraint or holding of a child against their will for a clinical procedure. Evidence indicates a need to move practice forward as the issues identified in paediatric practice are long-standing and historical.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aims to transpose the printed Brazilian Children's Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ BR) into a 2D digital format, validate it with nurses and hospitalized children, and analyze the association between the printed and 2D digital format versions. DESIGN AND METHOD: This is a descriptive and multicentric study, conducted from 2021 to 2022 on working in pediatric care at two hospitals in Brazil. The nurses analyzed the printed and digital instruments and subsequently applied them to a child and proposed suggestions. A cutoff score of 0.80 on the content validity index was used; items that scored an average lower than the CVI in the study were adequate. Eighty children responded to the questionnaires sequentially according to the randomization table. A 90% agreement rate was used. RESULTS: The digital instrument was validated in content by 51 experts, with a CVI of 0.95. Face validation data for 80 children (mean age = 7.9 years) shows a 90% agreement rate. The intraclass correlation index for the general score was 0.87 and 95% CI (0.79-0.91), which shows good stability of the children's responses in both questionnaires. In addition, 59% (n = 47) of the children reported a preference for the digital questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The digital CAQ BR can be used as an audiovisual instrument by nurses when implementing the systematization of nursing care in pediatrics. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The digital 2D version was successfully applied and can be used in hospitals to measure children's self-reported anxiety.
