↓ Skip to main content

Using the nominal group technique to involve young people in an evidence synthesis which explored ‘risk’ in inpatient mental healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, September 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 (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Using the nominal group technique to involve young people in an evidence synthesis which explored ‘risk’ in inpatient mental healthcare
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40900-017-0069-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Evans, Ben Hannigan, Steven Pryjmachuk, Elizabeth Gillen, Deborah Edwards, Mirella Longo, Gemma Trainor, Felicity Hathway

Abstract

We conducted a review of research on the topic of 'risk' in hospital based mental health care for young people aged 11-18. We wanted to include a contribution from young people alongside other stakeholders with expertise to guide the research team in decisions made setting parameters for the review. To achieve this, we held a stakeholder group meeting. We used the nominal group technique, a method designed to create a structure and a process for getting feedback from a group of people in a way that allows everyone to have an equal say. In this study, we show how our use of this approach enabled our stakeholder group to shape the focus of our study towards an area of more importance and relevance to them. In this paper we demonstrate how our application of the nominal group technique was used as a method of involving young people with previous experience of using inpatient mental health services in an evidence synthesis. Nominal group technique is an approach to group decision-making that places weight on all participants having an equal opportunity to express a view, and to influence decisions which are made. It is an effective way to enable people who might otherwise be excluded from decision-making to contribute. In this study, the focus of the evidence synthesis was significantly shaped following using the nominal group technique in our stakeholder advisory group meeting. The young people present in the group invited the research group to think differently about which 'risks' were important, to consider how young people conceptualised risk differently, focussing on risks with long term impact and quality of life implications, rather than immediate clinical risks. Using the nominal group technique with young people did offer a method of promoting the equality of decision making within a stakeholder advisory group to an evidence synthesis project, but care needs to be taken to invite sufficient young people to attend so they can be proportionally represented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 31%
Psychology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,564,424
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#134
of 470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,617
of 321,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 321,459 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.