↓ Skip to main content

What Variables Are Associated With an Expressed Wish to Kill a Doctor in Community and Injured Patient Samples?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, March 2010
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 (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
What Variables Are Associated With an Expressed Wish to Kill a Doctor in Community and Injured Patient Samples?
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, March 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10880-010-9190-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Bruns, David A. Fishbain, John Mark Disorbio, John E. Lewis

Abstract

Working in a health care setting has been identified as a primary risk factor for violent assault, which is often perpetrated by patients. Patient dangerousness is a multidimensional phenomenon, which may include violent ideation, homicidal planning, a history of violent acts, or overt threatening behavior. Although the verbal report of thoughts of killing a doctor is only one of many risk factors for patient dangerousness, reports of homicidal ideation are widely regarded as being sufficient to warrant concern, and to indicate a need for further assessment of the patient. In this study, 2264 subjects (1329 healthy community subjects, 158 non-healthy community subjects, and 777 rehabilitation patients) were asked if they had a desire to kill a doctor that they had seen. Subjects responding positively to this item were compared to subjects responding negatively to the item using all available demographic variables and BHI 2 scales using chi-square or t-test. Significant variables (p<.01) were then utilized in a logistic regression to generate a model for this wish. Three variables significantly predicted this wish: the Doctor Dissatisfaction (p<.001) and Borderline (p<.001) scales of the BHI 2, and injury-related litigation status (p=.002). The presence of one of these variables, especially Doctor Dissatisfaction, should prompt a more thorough assessment of potential danger to healthcare workers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 September 2010.
All research outputs
#5,500,977
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#108
of 438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,622
of 94,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 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 438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 94,898 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 71% 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