↓ Skip to main content

The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0297-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marit Helene Hem, Bert Molewijk, Elisabeth Gjerberg, Lillian Lillemoen, Reidar Pedersen

Abstract

Professionals within the mental health services face many ethical dilemmas and challenging situations regarding the use of coercion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of participating in systematic ethics reflection groups focusing on ethical challenges related to coercion. In 2013 and 2014, 20 focus group interviews with 127 participants were conducted. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis is inspired by the concept of 'bricolage' which means our approach was inductive. Most participants report positive experiences with participating in ethics reflection groups: A systematic and well-structured approach to discuss ethical challenges, increased consciousness of formal and informal coercion, a possibility to challenge problematic concepts, attitudes and practices, improved professional competence and confidence, greater trust within the team, more constructive disagreement and room for internal critique, less judgmental reactions and more reasoned approaches, and identification of potential for improvement and alternative courses of action. On several wards, the participation of psychiatrists and psychologists in the reflection groups was missing. The impact of the perceived lack of safety in reflection groups should not be underestimated. Sometimes the method for ethics reflection was utilised in a rigid way. Direct involvement of patients and family was missing. This focus group study indicates the potential of ethics reflection groups to create a moral space in the workplace that promotes critical, reflective and collaborative moral deliberations. Future research, with other designs and methodologies, is needed to further investigate the impact of ethics reflection groups on improving health care practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 21%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Other 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Psychology 3 13%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,403,226
of 13,046,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#512
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,858
of 270,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,046,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 270,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.