↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative analysis of relatives’, health professionals’ and service users’ views on the involvement in care of relatives in Bipolar Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
A qualitative analysis of relatives’, health professionals’ and service users’ views on the involvement in care of relatives in Bipolar Disorder
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0611-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerasimos Chatzidamianos, Fiona Lobban, Steven Jones

Abstract

Relatives of people with bipolar disorder report that services do not meet their own needs, despite clinical recommendations for the development of care plans for relatives, provision of information regarding their statutory entitlements, and formal involvement in decision making meetings. Further, there is now conclusive evidence highlighting the benefits of relatives' involvement in improving outcomes for service users, relatives, and the health system as a whole. This qualitative study explored the views of relatives of people with bipolar disorder, service users and healthcare professionals regarding the barriers and the facilitators to relatives' involvement in care. Thirty five people were interviewed (12 relatives, 11 service users and 12 healthcare professionals). Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and common themes in participants' narratives emerged using framework analysis. Participants' accounts confirmed the existence of opportunities for relatives to be involved. These, however, were limited and not always accessible. There were three factors identified that influenced accessibility namely: pre-existing worldviews, the quality of relationships and of communication between those involved, and specific structural impediments. These themes are understood as intertwined and dependent on one another. People's thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, cultural identifications and worldviews often underlie the ways by which they communicate and the quality of their relationship. These, however, need to be conceptualised within operational frameworks and policy agendas in health settings that often limit bipolar relatives' accessibility to opportunities for being more formally involved. Involving relatives leads to clear benefits for relatives, service users, healthcare professionals, and the health system as a whole. Successful involvement of relatives, however, depends on a complex network of processes and interactions among all those involved and requires strategic planning from policy makers, operational plans and allocation of resources.

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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Computer Science 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,564,768
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,714
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,508
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#20
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,692 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 63% 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 274,665 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 72% of its contemporaries.