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 |
Triage, decision-making and follow-up of patients referred to a UK forensic service: validation of the DUNDRUM toolkit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-015-0620-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Freestone, Deborah Bull, Roz Brown, Neil Boast, Faye Blazey, Paul Gilluley |
| Abstract |
Forensic medium secure services in the UK are a scarce but essential resource providing care for those in the criminal justice system with severe mental disorder. Appropriate allocation of beds to those most in need is essential to ensure efficient use of this resource. To improve decision-making processes in a UK forensic service, an admissions panel utilized the DUNDRUM 1&2 (D1 & D2) triage instruments. Demographic, diagnostic and clinical information on a prospective sample of referrals to a UK adult forensic service was gathered (n = 195). D1 and D2 measures were scored by a panel of clinical managers considering referral information and clinician opinion in reaching their ratings; those not admitted were also followed up. Within the sample, D1 ratings were predictive of decisions to admit (AUC = .79) and also differentiated between levels of security (F(4) = 16.54, p < .001). Non-admission was not significantly associated with increased risk of offending at follow-up. Items relating to self-harm and institutional behaviour did not show a predictive relationship with the panel decision to admit. Use of a structured professional judgement tool showing good predictive validity has improved transparency of decisions and appears to be associated with more efficient use of resources, without increased risk to the public. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 22% |
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Librarian | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,886
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,081
of 278,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#77
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.