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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interpretations of legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission: a qualitative analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-014-0500-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eli Feiring, Kristian N Ugstad |
| Abstract |
The use of involuntary admission in psychiatry may be necessary to enable treatment and prevent harm, yet remains controversial. Mental health laws in high-income countries typically permit coercive treatment of persons with mental disorders to restore health or prevent future harm. Criteria intended to regulate practice leave scope for discretion. The values and beliefs of staff may become a determinating factor for decisions. Previous research has only to a limited degree addressed how legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission are interpreted by clinical decision-makers. We examined clinicians' interpretations of criteria for involuntary admission under the Norwegian Mental Health Care Act. This act applies a status approach, whereby involuntary admission can be used at the presence of mental disorder and need for treatment or perceived risk to the patient or others. Further, best interest assessments carry a large justificatory burden and open for a range of extra-legislative factors to be considered. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Grenada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 30% |
| Psychology | 13 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,745,988
of 23,987,854 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,148
of 8,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,803
of 263,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#25
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,987,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 263,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.