↓ Skip to main content

Worlds apart? A scoping review addressing different stakeholder perspectives on barriers to family involvement in the care for persons with severe mental illness

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Worlds apart? A scoping review addressing different stakeholder perspectives on barriers to family involvement in the care for persons with severe mental illness
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2213-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elleke Landeweer, Bert Molewijk, Marit Helene Hem, Reidar Pedersen

Abstract

Empirical evidence shows that family involvement (FI) can play a pivotal role in the coping and recovery of persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Nevertheless, various studies demonstrate that FI in mental healthcare services is often not (sufficiently) realized. In order to develop more insights, this scoping review gives an overview of how various stakeholders conceptualize, perceive and experience barriers to FI. Central questions are: 1) What are the main barriers to FI reported by the different key stakeholders (i.e. the persons with SMI, their families and the professionals, and 2) What are the differences and similarities between the various stakeholders' perspectives on these barriers. A systematic search into primary studies regarding FI was conducted in four databases: Medline/Pubmed, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Web of Knowledge with the use of a PICO scheme. Thematic analysis focused on stakeholder perspectives (i.e. which stakeholder group reports the barrier) and types of barriers (i.e. which types of barriers are addressed). Thirty three studies were included. The main barriers reported by the stakeholder groups reveal important similarities and differences between the stakeholder groups and were related to: 1) the person with SMI, 2) the family, 3) the professionals, 4) the organization of care and 5) the culture-paradigm. Our stakeholder approach elicits the different stakeholders' concepts, presuppositions and experiences of barriers to FI, and gives fundamental insights on how to deal with barriers to FI. The stakeholders differing interpretations and perceptions of the barriers related to FI is closely related to the inherent complexity involved in FI in itself. In order to deal better with these barriers, openly discussing and reflecting upon each other's normative understandings of barriers is needed. Differences in perceptions of barriers to FI can itself be a barrier. To deal with barriers to FI, a dialogical approach on how the different stakeholders perceive and value FI and its barriers is required. Methods such as moral case deliberation or systematic ethics reflections can be useful.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,997,230
of 10,263,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,440
of 3,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,894
of 262,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,263,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 262,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.