| Title |
Enhancing adult therapeutic interpersonal relationships in the acute health care setting: an integrative review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jmdh.s116957 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Kornhaber, Kenneth Walsh, Jed Duff, Kim Walker |
| Abstract |
Therapeutic interpersonal relationships are the primary component of all health care interactions that facilitate the development of positive clinician-patient experiences. Therapeutic interpersonal relationships have the capacity to transform and enrich the patients' experiences. Consequently, with an increasing necessity to focus on patient-centered care, it is imperative for health care professionals to therapeutically engage with patients to improve health-related outcomes. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO databases of peer-reviewed research, limited to the English language with search terms developed to reflect therapeutic interpersonal relationships between health care professionals and patients in the acute care setting. This study found that therapeutic listening, responding to patient emotions and unmet needs, and patient centeredness were key characteristics of strategies for improving therapeutic interpersonal relationships. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 553 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 553 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 161 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 74 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 4% |
| Other | 65 | 12% |
| Unknown | 179 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 185 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 9% |
| Psychology | 34 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 71 | 13% |
| Unknown | 182 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#14,730,794
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#401
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,673
of 333,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 333,142 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.