↓ Skip to main content

How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
153 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1212-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rose McCabe, Imren Sterno, Stefan Priebe, Rebecca Barnes, Richard Byng

Abstract

There is little evidence on how professionals communicate to assess suicide risk. This study analysed how professionals interview patients about suicidal ideation in clinical practice. Three hundred nineteen video-recorded outpatient visits in U.K. secondary mental health care were screened. 83 exchanges about suicidal ideation were identified in 77 visits. A convenience sample of 6 cases in 46 primary care visits was also analysed. Depressive symptoms were assessed. Questions and responses were qualitatively analysed using conversation analysis. χ (2) tested whether questions were influenced by severity of depression or influenced patients' responses. A gateway closed question was always asked inviting a yes/no response. 75% of questions were negatively phrased, communicating an expectation of no suicidal ideation, e.g., "No thoughts of harming yourself?". 25% were positively phrased, communicating an expectation of suicidal ideation, e.g., "Do you feel life is not worth living?". Comparing these two question types, patients were significantly more likely to say they were not suicidal when the question was negatively phrased but were not more likely to say they were suicidal when positively phrased (χ (2) = 7.2, df = 1, p = 0.016). 25% patients responded with a narrative rather than a yes/no, conveying ambivalence. Here, psychiatrists tended to pursue a yes/no response. When the patient responded no to the gateway question, the psychiatrist moved on to the next topic. A similar pattern was identified in primary care. Psychiatrists tend to ask patients to confirm they are not suicidal using negative questions. Negatively phrased questions bias patients' responses towards reporting no suicidal ideation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 153 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 10 8%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Linguistics 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 26 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#266,400
of 18,938,127 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#60
of 3,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,567
of 276,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,938,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 276,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them