↓ Skip to main content

Recommended next care following hospital-treated self-harm: Patterns and trends over time

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Recommended next care following hospital-treated self-harm: Patterns and trends over time
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0193587
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ella Arensman, Eve Griffin, Caroline Daly, Paul Corcoran, Eugene Cassidy, Ivan J. Perry

Abstract

The specific objectives of this study were to examine variation in the care of self-harm patients in hospital settings and to identify the factors that predict recommended next care following self-harm. Data on consecutive presentations to Irish emergency departments (EDs) involving self-harm from the National Self-Harm Registry Ireland from 2004 to 2012 were utilised. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between patients' clinical and demographic characteristics, and recommended next care received. Across the study period a total 101,904 self-harm presentations were made to hospital EDs, involving 63,457 individuals. Over the course of the study there was a declining number of presentations resulting in patient admission following attendance with self-harm. Recommended next care varied according to hospital location, with general admission rates ranging from 11% to 61% across administrative health regions. Multinomial logistic regression identified that the factor which most strongly affected next care was the presenting hospital. Being male, older age, method, repeat self-harm, time of attendance and residence of the patient were all identified as influencing care received. Psychiatric admission was most common when highly lethal methods of self-harm were used (OR = 4.00, 95% CI, 3.63-4.41). A relatively large proportion of patients left the ED without being seen (15%) and the risk of doing so was highest for self-harm repeaters (1.64, 1.55-1.74 for those with 5+ presentations). The extensive hospital variation in recommended next care indicates that management of self-harm patients may be determined more by where they present than by the needs of the patient. The study outcomes underline the need to standardise the clinical management of self-harm patients in general hospital settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 32%

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 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
#8,835,258
of 16,027,561 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#75,229
of 158,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,397
of 279,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,541
of 2,771 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,027,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 279,291 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,771 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.