↓ Skip to main content

Stress reactions after a patient suicide and their relations to the profile of mental health professionals

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Stress reactions after a patient suicide and their relations to the profile of mental health professionals
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0655-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dolores Angela Castelli Dransart, Jean-Luc Heeb, Alida Gulfi, Elisabeth M. Gutjahr

Abstract

Patient suicide is a professional hazard for mental health professionals and an event likely to trigger stress reactions among them. This study aimed to identify typical profiles of professionals after a patient suicide to address the severity of stress reactions and its discriminant variables. Mental health professionals (N = 666) working in institutional settings or private practice in the French-speaking part of Switzerland filled out a self-administered questionnaire including the IES-R (Impact of Event Scale-Revised). Profiles were identified by cluster analysis. The interplay of variables pertaining to the relationship to the patient, exposure to suicide, support and training contributed to explaining the severity of stress reactions after a patient suicide. Five profiles of professionals were identified. Low-impacted professionals (55.8 % of the sample) were characterised either by high support and anticipation (anticipators with support), emotional distance to the patient (distant professionals) or no contact with the patient at the time of death (no more contact with patient professionals). Emotional closeness to, and responsibility for the patient were typical of moderately-impacted professionals (36.6 %, concerned professionals), while highly-impacted professionals felt emotionally close to the patient and lacked support although more than half of them sought it (7.7 %, unsupported professionals). Differences in the professionals' profiles relate prominently to the interplay between risk and protective factors. Professionals who were appropriately supported, i.e., according to their risk profile, were able to cope with the event. Taking into account the profiles of professionals and the severity of stress reactions may enable the screening of those professionals most in need of support. Those most impacted sought out help more frequently. However, only a minority of them were offered sufficient support. Institutional or vocational bodies should take measures to ensure that professionals seeking help find it easily and promptly. The combination of training and support seems to be crucial for mitigating risk factors since the three low impacted subgroups had received the most training and support.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 16 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 December 2015.
All research outputs
#8,769,062
of 14,535,828 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,223
of 3,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,765
of 285,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#207
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,535,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 285,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.