↓ Skip to main content

Suicidal patients’ experiences regarding their safety during psychiatric in-patient care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Suicidal patients’ experiences regarding their safety during psychiatric in-patient care: a systematic review of qualitative studies
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2023-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siv Hilde Berg, Kristine Rørtveit, Karina Aase

Abstract

In-patient suicide prevention is a high priority in many countries, but its practice remains poorly understood. Patients in a suicidal crisis who receive psychiatric care can provide valuable insight into understanding and improving patient safety. The aim of this paper was therefore to summarize the qualitative literature regarding suicidal patients' in-patient care experiences. The following question guided the review: How can we describe suicidal patients' experiences regarding safety during psychiatric in-patient care? Systematic searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, SOCINDEX and PsycINFO databases, identifying 20 qualitative studies on suicidal patients and their psychiatric in-patient care experiences. These studies were systematically reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, synthesized via thematic analysis and subjected to quality appraisals. Patients described safety as "feeling safe", and three components, i.e., connection, protection and control, were vital to their experiences of safety. Fulfilling these needs was essential to patients recovering from suicidal crises, feeling safe during encounters with health care professionals and feeling safe from suicidal impulses. Unmet needs for connection, protection and control left patients feeling unsafe and increased their suicidal behaviour. Our review addresses the importance of adopting a wider perspective of patient safety than considering safety solely in technical and physical terms. Safety for the suicidal patient is highly dependent on patients' perceptions of their psychological safety and the fulfilment of their needs. The three patient-identified factors mentioned above - connection, protection and control - should be considered an integral part of patient safety practices and should form the basis of future efforts to understand the safety of suicidal patients during psychiatric in-patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 11%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 48 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,134,968
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,832
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,496
of 423,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#28
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 423,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.