↓ Skip to main content

De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009922.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maolin Du, Xuemei Wang, Shaohua Yin, Wei Shu, Ruiqi Hao, Sai Zhao, Harish Rao, Wan-Ley Yeung, Mahesh B Jayaram, Jun Xia

Abstract

Aggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.De-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user. To investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis. We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016). Randomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis. Of the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial. Using de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Unspecified 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Unspecified 15 18%
Psychology 10 12%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Other 5 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,566,214
of 12,651,470 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,698
of 10,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,833
of 257,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,651,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 257,645 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.