↓ Skip to main content

Mental health nurses’ views about antipsychotic medication side effects

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Mental health nurses’ views about antipsychotic medication side effects
Published in
Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, June 2016
DOI 10.1111/jpm.12314
Pubmed ID
Authors

N J Stomski, P Morrison, T Meehan

Abstract

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The only previous quantitative study that examined nurses' use of assessment tools to identify antipsychotic medication side effects found that about 25% of mental health nurses were using assessment tools. No previous studies have examined factors that influence the manner in which mental health nurses assess antipsychotic medication side effects. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: One-third of the respondents were not aware of any antipsychotic medication side-effect assessment tool, and only one-quarter were currently using an assessment tool. 'Service responsibility' was significantly associated with ongoing use of antipsychotic medication assessment tools, indicating that respondents with more positive attitudes to their service were more likely to continue using antipsychotic medication assessment tools. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The low level of awareness and use of antipsychotic medication side-effect assessment tools indicates that nursing educational institutions should incorporate more detail about these tools in course content, and emphasize in particular the benefits that result from the use of these tools in clinical practice. Service processes contributed significantly to the use of antipsychotic medication assessment tools, which indicates that managers need to foster workplace cultures that promote routine use of these tools. Introduction Limited evidence suggests that only a minority of mental health nurses regularly use standardized assessment tools to assess antipsychotic medication side effects, but the factors that contribute to the non-routine use of these tools remain unknown. Aim To examine Australian mental health nurses' awareness of, and attitudes towards, side-effect assessment tools, and also identify factors the influence the use of these tools. Methods A cross-sectional survey was undertaken through distributing an online questionnaire via email to members of the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses. Completed questionnaires were received from 171 respondents. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the 'service responsibility' and 'personal confidence' scale scores, and awareness, previous use and ongoing use of antipsychotic medication assessment tools. Results Only one-quarter of the respondents (26.5%) were currently using an assessment tool. 'Service responsibility' was significantly associated with ongoing use of antipsychotic medication assessment tools (Β = 3.26; 95% CI 0.83-5.69). 'Personal confidence' did not influence the ongoing use of assessment tools (Β = -0.05; 95% CI -1.06-1.50). Implications for clinical practice Stakeholders can incorporate 'service responsibility' processes to foster increased use of assessment tools, which may enhance the identification antipsychotic medication side effects and improve the quality of care for service users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 22%
Psychology 6 12%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 18 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,833,233
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing
#96
of 1,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,738
of 367,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 367,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.