↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression with mental health inpatients: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression with mental health inpatients: a feasibility study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s103840
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tella Lantta, Raija Kontio, Michael Daffern, Clive E Adams, Maritta Välimäki

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the acceptability of Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) from the perspective of patients, its actual use by mental health nurses, and the predictive validity of the DASA instrument. A feasibility study design incorporating quantitative and qualitative components was used. The study was conducted in three mental health inpatient units at three hospitals in southern Finland. Quantitative data were used to explore demand (nurses' actual use of the DASA), limited efficacy (predictive validity), and acceptability (measured through patients' participation in the project). Qualitative data were collected to enhance the understanding of acceptability by describing patients' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the DASA. Nurses used the DASA for most patient assessments. The predictive validity of the DASA was outstanding or excellent, depending on the type of aggression predicted, although the patient recruitment ratio was low. Patients reported both strengths and weaknesses of the DASA, providing complementary information regarding the instrument's acceptability and clinical application. The DASA accurately predicts inpatient aggression. The patients' preferences and concerns regarding risk assessment have been noted. More patient involvement in risk assessment research and violence prevention efforts is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 24%
Psychology 9 17%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%

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 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,764,722
of 13,818,870 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#520
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,265
of 261,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#38
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,818,870 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 261,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.