ArticleBMC health services research2019
Patient empowerment in risk management: a mixed-method study to explore mental health professionals' perspective.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mental health professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management: a qualitative systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Empowering Collaboration With Patients: Healthcare Staff's Perspectives on Conditions for Shared Decision-Making in Swedish Psychiatric Care.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Systems Thinking in Mental Health Patient Safety: A Narrative Review of Complex Adaptive Systems.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Review
- Persons suffering from severe and persistent mental illness with a persistent death wish: A cross-sectional study of the Reakiro care model.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Screening Second Victims for Emotional Distress: Assessment of the Clinimetric Properties of the WITHSTAND-PSY Questionnaire.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2023Article
- A Practical Framework for Academics to Implement Public Engagement Interventions and Measure Their Impact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- How can we best help this patient? Exploring mental health therapists' reflections on medication-free care for patients with psychosis in Norway.International journal of mental health systems · 2022Article
- 'If we would change things outside we wouldn't even need to go in…' supporting recovery via community-based actions: A focus group study on psychiatric rehospitalization.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- A Review of Various Methods of Management of Risk in the Field of Emergency Medicine.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last years, patients' empowerment has been increasingly recognized as a crucial dimension of patient-centered healthcare and patient safety. Nevertheless, little work has been done so far in the field of patient safety to investigate strategies for empowering psychiatric patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify, by using focus groups, whether and how psychiatric patients' empowerment can improve risk management according to the perspective of healthcare providers (HPs).
methodsA mixed-method approach composed of a qualitative data collection method (i.e., focus groups) and a quantitative analysis technique (i.e., inductive content analysis) was applied. HPs working in mental health settings shared their perspectives on psychiatric patients' empowerment in risk management. After the transcription of the audio-taped discussions and the subsequent development of a hierarchical four-level coding system (strategy versus critical issue, thematic area, category, subcategory), two independent raters codified the transcripts and synthesized the content. Absolute frequencies are reported for quantitative data.
resultsTwelve focus groups consisting of six to ten participants, each with an overall sample size of 95 participants (65 women; average age ± SD 47 ± 9 yrs), were enrolled. A total of 1252 participants' verbal contributions (i.e., units of analysis) were assessed. Strategies and critical issues (Level 1) were mentioned almost equally (52 and 48%, respectively) by the HPs. Most of the contributions at Level 2 referred to the thematic areas Treatment and Cure (69%) and Emergency Management (21%). In the area Treatment and Cure, the category Therapeutic Compliance (Level 3) was discussed in one third of all contributions.
conclusionsOur results suggest that HPs consider patients as crucial partners in risk management and expect them to play a key role in actively enhancing safety. Policy makers should be aware that risk management in mental health settings particularly relies on the therapeutic relationship between HPs and patients. Therefore, allocating sufficient human and financial resources to mental health care aiming to further support the relationship between patients and HPs is of utmost importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.