↓ Skip to main content

Self-admission to inpatient treatment in psychiatry: lessons on implementation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Self-admission to inpatient treatment in psychiatry: lessons on implementation
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1505-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mattias Strand, Sanna A. Gustafsson, Cynthia M. Bulik, Yvonne von Hausswolff-Juhlin

Abstract

Interest has increased in programs offering self-admission to inpatient treatment for patients with severe psychiatric illness, whereby patients who are well-known to a service are afforded the opportunity to admit themselves at will for a brief period of time. The aim of the present study was to examine patient experiences of practical considerations during the start-up phase of a self-admission program in an eating disorder service. Sixteen adult participants in a self-admission program at a specialist eating disorders service were interviewed at 6 months about their experiences during the implementation phase. A qualitative content analysis approach was applied in order to identify recurring themes. Six subcategories regarding implementation and logistics of self-admission were identified: "Start-up problems", "Problems associated with reserving a bed", "Lack of staff continuity", "Not enough emphasis on long-term goals", "Too demanding in terms of freedom and responsibility", and "Suggestions for alternative models". Practical recommendations can be offered for the implementation of future self-admission programs, such as thoroughly informing all participants about the rationale behind self-admission with particular emphasis on patient accountability, establishing a waiting list procedure for occasions when all designated beds are occupied, and assigning an individual contact staff member responsible for each self-admitted patient. The study protocol is retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as ID: NCT02937259 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Psychology 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,046,847
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,104
of 4,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,229
of 324,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#29
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 324,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.