SynthesisBMC public health2025
Tools to predict imminent risk of patient perpetrated workplace violence in healthcare settings: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkplace violence (WPV) in healthcare settings affects the safety and well-being of healthcare professionals and impacts the quality of care delivered to patients. Type 2 WPV involves violence directed towards staff by patients or visitors and includes physical and verbal violence. The prevalence of Type 2 WPV in healthcare settings has prompted the need for effective predictive assessment tools to identify the risk of imminent violence to enhance the safety of both healthcare workers and patients. There are many tools represented in the literature and identification of the best tool for a patient care setting can be challenging.
objectiveThe purpose of this umbrella review was to evaluate the characteristics, validity, and reliability of healthcare violence risk assessment tools presented in review literature to support organizational decision-making.
methodsPublications up to June 2024 were analyzed. Article inclusion criteria included articles from peer reviewed journals, published in English, specific to healthcare, and addressed tools which were predictive of imminent violence (defined as predictive to occur within one week).
resultsFrom 292 identified studies, 14 review articles met the inclusion criteria, representing more than 111,000 participants. Across these reviews, 19 tools were identified and 12 tools had published data on validity and reliability. The Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) and the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) were the most consistently evaluated, with the strongest psychometric data. The BVC AUC (area under the curve) ranged from 0.69 to 0.98, sensitivity ranged from 45.7% to 88.6%, specificity ranged from 80% to 100%, PPV (positive predictive value) ranged from 3% to 67.5%, and NPV (negative predictive value) from 97% to 99.5%. The DASA’s AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.92, sensitivity ranged from 23% to 87%, specificity ranged from 42% to 96%, PPV ranged from 4 to 15%, and NPV from 98% to 99%. Other strong tools included ABRAT and QOVPRAO.
conclusionThe BVC and DASA are the most represented tools, include the most consistent validity and reliability metrics, and have diverse utility within various clinical settings. The ABRAT has also been utilized in a variety of settings yet has a larger number of assessment items (16) compared to the BVC and DASA at six and seven respectively.
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.