↓ Skip to main content

Using photo-elicitation to understand reasons for repeated self-harm: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, April 2018
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Using photo-elicitation to understand reasons for repeated self-harm: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1681-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J. Edmondson, Cathy Brennan, Allan O. House

Abstract

Reasons for self-harm are not well understood. One of the reasons for this is that first-hand accounts are usually elicited using traditional interview and questionnaire methods. This study aims to explore the acceptability of using an approach (photo-elicitation) that does not rely on solely verbal or written techniques, and to make a preliminary assessment of whether people can usefully employ images to support a discussion about the reasons why they self-harm. Interviews with eight participants using photo elicitation, a method in which photographs produced by the participant are used as a stimulus and guide within the interview. Participants responded positively to using images to support a discussion about their self-harm and readily incorporated images in the interview. Four main themes were identified representing negative and positive or adaptive purposes of self-harm: self-harm as a response to distress, self-harm to achieve mastery, self-harm as protective and self-harm as a language or form of communication. Employing this novel approach was useful in broadening our understanding of self-harm.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 23%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Arts and Humanities 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,381,374
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#565
of 3,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,507
of 278,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 278,137 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them