↓ Skip to main content

Next of kin’s experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation and coercion

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Next of kin’s experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation and coercion
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0159-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reidun Førde, Reidun Norvoll, Marit Helene Hem, Reidar Pedersen

Abstract

Norway has extensive and detailed legal requirements and guidelines concerning involvement of next of kin (NOK) during involuntary hospital treatment of seriously mentally ill patients. However, we have little knowledge about what happens in practice. This study explores NOK's views and experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation in Norway. We performed qualitative interviews-focus groups and individual-with 36 adult NOK to adults and adolescents who had been involuntarily admitted once or several times. The semi-structured interview guide included questions on experiences with and views on involvement during serious mental illness and coercion. Most of the NOK were heavily involved in the patient's life and illness. Their conceptions of involvement during mental illness and coercion, included many important aspects adding to the traditional focus on substitute decision-making. The overall impression was, with a few exceptions, that the NOK had experienced lack of involvement or had negative experiences as NOK in their encounters with the health services. Not being seen and acknowledged as important caregivers and co sufferers were experienced as offensive and could add to their feelings of guilt. Lack of involvement had as a consequence that vital patient information which the NOK possessed was not shared with the patient's therapists. Despite public initiatives to improve the involvement of NOK, the NOK in our study felt neglected, unappreciated and dismissed. The paper discusses possible reasons for the gap between public policies and practice which deserve more attention: 1. A strong and not always correct focus on legal matters. 2. Little emphasis on the role of NOK in professional ethics. 3. The organisation of health services and resource constraints. 4. A conservative culture regarding the role of next of kin in mental health care. Acknowledging these reasons may be helpful to understand deficient involvement of the NOK in voluntary mental health services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,087,529
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#612
of 1,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,360
of 427,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 427,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.