↓ Skip to main content

Developing an emotional coping skills workbook for inpatient psychiatric settings: a focus group investigation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, June 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Developing an emotional coping skills workbook for inpatient psychiatric settings: a focus group investigation
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1790-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly Sharp, Anu Gulati, Chris Barker, Kirsten Barnicot

Abstract

Evidence suggests an unmet need for provision of psychological interventions in inpatient psychiatric settings. However, inpatient wards can present a challenging environment in which to implement interventions. The authors developed the Emotional Coping Skills workbook, a psychosocial intervention designed to overcome these challenges and provide inpatients with an opportunity for psychologically-informed therapeutic engagement. The workbook includes information and exercises to empower inpatients to understand their emotions and learn to cope with their distress. A qualitative study using thematic analysis was undertaken in two UK inpatient psychiatric hospitals to explore staff's views about whether and how the workbook could be implemented, and on barriers to its use. Thirty-five nursing and occupational therapy staff members participated in four focus groups, and a further two psychologists in semi-structured interviews. Staff identified key barriers to successful implementation of the workbook. These were firstly, the difficulty in finding time and space for therapeutic work in the stressful ward environment. Secondly, staff identified a culture of emotional neglect whereby neither staff nor inpatients felt able to talk about emotions, and patients' physical needs and medication were prioritised. Thirdly, staff discussed how psychotic symptoms and emotional distress could limit patients' ability to engage with the workbook material. Staff suggested ways in which the feasibility of using the workbook could be enhanced. Firstly, they discussed the importance of encouraging staff to value psychological approaches and to view the workbook as a resource to help them manage their existing tasks. Secondly, they emphasised the value of staff drawing on their expertise to deliver the workbook flexibly in different formats and settings, depending on each patient's particular presentation. Thirdly, they advocated empowering staff to decide the timing of intervention delivery in the context of each inpatient's fluctuations in distress and progress towards recovery. The study has highlighted key principles for flexible and well-integrated intervention delivery; these principles will be helpful for enhancing the feasibility of any nurse-delivered psychological intervention in inpatient settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 44 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 52 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,198,857
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,240
of 5,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,616
of 342,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#42
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 342,332 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 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 67% of its contemporaries.