Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2026
The Aggression and Violence Evaluation of Risk Tool: A Context-Specific Instrument to Assess Risk of Violence in the Emergency Department.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Aggression and Violence Evaluation of Risk Tool: A Context-Specific Instrument to Assess Risk of Violence in the Emergency Department.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the relationship between the Bröset Violence Checklist and additional risk factors identified in prior research by our team to determine which combination best predicted an emergency response to a violent incident in an emergency department.
designA prospective observational study was used to collect data about a single cohort of adult patients admitted in August 2024.
methodNurses who use the Bröset Violence Checklist as part of routine observations scored eight additional violence indicators and recorded security incidents.
resultsData from 5634 observations, 1762 patients, and 68 emergency incidents was analysed using a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics to evaluate the relationship between factors and incidents. Seven factors correlated significantly with violence (p < 0.05). Three factors (verbal threats, physical threats, and attacking objects) were excluded as they represent manifestations of violence rather than predictive indicators. Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis of the combination of the remaining four factors (history of violence, drug and/or alcohol influence, agitation/restlessness, and imposed restrictions) revealed an Area Under the Curve of 0.98.
conclusionThe findings were integrated to develop a revised instrument-the Aggression and Violence Evaluation of Risk Tool. This new tool demonstrates equivalent predictive capability to the Bröset Violence Checklist, yet it is simpler and easier to use. IMPACT: Context-specific violence assessment schemes are needed to strengthen risk mitigation strategies. The Aggression and Violence Evaluation of Risk Tool incorporates unique situational risks developed specifically for emergency departments. It has the potential to effectively ameliorate violence risk and enhance worker and patient safety. REPORTING
methodSTROBE has been followed. IMPLICATIONS: The findings produced an instrument that can be translated to emergency departments to reduce the prevalence of violence. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Limited patient and public involvement comprising observations of adult patients in an emergency department in Melbourne, Australia.
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.