↓ Skip to main content

Open general medical wards versus specialist psychiatric units for acute psychoses

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Open general medical wards versus specialist psychiatric units for acute psychoses
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003290.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fred W Hickling, Wendel Abel, Paul Garner, John Rathbone

Abstract

As international healthcare policy has moved away from treating people with severe mental illness in large inpatient psychiatric institutions, beds for people with acute psychiatric disorders are being established in specialised psychiatric units in general hospitals. In developing countries, however, limited resources mean that it is not always possible to provide discrete psychiatric units, either in general hospitals or in the community. An alternative model of admission, used in the Caribbean, is to treat the person with acute psychosis in a general hospital ward. To compare the outcomes for people with acute psychosis who have been admitted to open medical wards with those admitted to conventional psychiatric units. We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register (April 2007). This register is compiled from searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Sociofile, and many conference proceedings. We would have included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised trials, allocating anyone thought to be suffering from an acute psychotic episode to either acute management on general medical wards, or acute management in a specialist psychiatric unit. The primary outcomes of interest were length of stay in hospital and relapse. We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we would have calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based using a fixed effects model. We didnt identify any relevant randomised trials. The Caribbean practice of treating people with severe mental illness on general medical wards has been influenced by socio-economic factors rather than evidence from randomised trials. This practice affords an opportunity for a well designed, well conducted and reported randomised trial, now impossible in many other settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 36%
Psychology 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,291,764
of 13,429,000 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,977
of 10,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,183
of 148,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,429,000 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 148,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.