↓ Skip to main content

Understanding readmission to psychiatric hospital in Australia from the service users’ perspective: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Health & Social Care in the Community, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Understanding readmission to psychiatric hospital in Australia from the service users’ perspective: a qualitative study
Published in
Health & Social Care in the Community, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/hsc.12269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Duhig, Imani Gunasekara, Sue Patterson

Abstract

Inpatient care is integral to balanced mental health systems, contributing to containment of risk associated with psychiatric crises and affording opportunities for treatment. However, psychiatric wards are not always safe and service users are often dissatisfied with the experience. Hence, and because inpatient care is the most costly component of mental health systems, minimising duration of admission and reducing risk of readmission are clinical and strategic priorities internationally. With (primarily quantitative) research to date focused on explaining readmission in terms of characteristics of individuals and services, understanding of the 'revolving door phenomenon' remains limited. Considering verstehen critical to addressing this messy problem, we examined readmission from the service users' perspective. Using grounded theory techniques, we inductively analysed data from interviews with 13 people readmitted to inpatient care within 28 days of discharge. Participants, including eight men, were recruited in 2013 from three psychiatric wards at a metropolitan hospital in Australia. Analysis supported description of readmission as a process, fundamentally related to insufficiency of internal, interpersonal and/or environmental resources to maintain community tenure. For the people in this study, admission to hospital was either the default coping mechanism or the culmination of counter-productive attempts to manage stressful circumstances. Readmission can appropriately be understood as one representation of a fundamental social malaise and the struggle of some people to survive in an apparently inhospitable world. The findings indicate that neither locating the 'problem of readmission' within an individual and promoting self-governance/self-control/self-regulation, nor identifying failures of specific services or sectors are likely to support the economic and ethical imperative of reducing psychiatric admissions. The findings of the study and limitations related to its conduct in a particular setting provide fertile ground for further research and design of interventions to break the readmission cycle. However, balanced, mental health services alone are insufficient; systems of care must become 'recovery oriented'.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Psychology 11 14%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health & Social Care in the Community
#1,559
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,536
of 277,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health & Social Care in the Community
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 277,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.