↓ Skip to main content

“Do you see what I mean?” staff collaboration in eating disorder units during mealtimes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
“Do you see what I mean?” staff collaboration in eating disorder units during mealtimes
Published in
BMC Nursing, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-017-0233-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trine Wiig Hage, Øyvind Rø, Anne Moen

Abstract

Eating disorders are psychiatric illnesses with potentially life-threatening consequences. Inpatient treatment is typically required for the most severely ill patients, who are often emaciated or significantly malnourished. A core therapeutic objective is to normalize eating patterns and facilitate weight gain. These goals guide the efforts of milieu therapeutic staff working with this patient group, who support renourishment through the positive manipulation of a structured environment, as well via relational aspects. However, there is a lack of empirical research exploring inpatient staff members' perspectives concerning various aspects of this work. This article explore staff's teamwork during mealtimes on inpatient eating disorder units. Specifically, we investigated the collaborative strategies employed to support core therapeutic goals of meal completion and normalized eating behavior, while concurrently maintaining a supportive, friendly atmosphere during mealtimes. This was a exploratory qualitative study. Data was collected through 20 semi-structured in-depth interviews with staff members working on a specialized eating disorder unit. The interviews were performed after the conduction of meal time support. Cultural historical activity theory was used as the key theoretical tool for analysis. The analysis revealed three main themes: 1) strategic seating arrangements mediates division of labor, 2) the use of verbal and nonverbal communication as collaborative tools, and 3) the importance of experience as a collaborative resource. The present study found that mealtime collaborative strategies on inpatient EDUs were mainly of non-verbal nature, with level of experience as an important premise for staff collaboration. Greater awareness about how collegial collaboration is practiced may help staff members to learn routines and regulate scripts for mealtime practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 43%
Psychology 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 July 2022.
All research outputs
#13,472,400
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#336
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,123
of 314,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 314,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.