The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Non‐somatic effects of patient aggression on nurses: a systematic review
Abstract
Aim. This paper describes a systematic review of the predominant non‐somatic effects of patient assault on nurses. Background. Patient aggression towards nurses is a longstanding problem in most nursing domains. Although reports on the consequences of physical aggression are more numerous, the non‐physical effects create much suffering. Method. A systematic review of literature from 1983 to May 2003 was conducted using the Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and PSYINDEX databases. Articles from international journals in English or German and reporting at least three non‐somatic responses to patient aggression were included. Findings. The electronic search produced 6616 articles. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 texts from eight countries and four domains of nursing remained. Twenty‐eight main effects were found, and these were categorized using a system suggested by Lanza and including bio‐physiological, emotional, cognitive, and social dimensions. The predominant responses were anger, fear or anxiety, post‐traumatic stress disorder symptoms, guilt, self‐blame, and shame. These main effects occurred across most countries and nursing domains. Conclusion. Despite differing countries, cultures, research designs and settings, nurses’ responses to patient aggression are similar. Standardized questionnaires could help improve estimations of the real prevalence of non‐somatic effects. Given the suffering caused by non‐somatic effects, research should be aimed at preventing patient aggression and at developing better ways to prepare nurses to cope with this problem.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Weltens, I., Bak, M., Verhagen, S., Vandenberk, E., Domen, P., van Amelsvoort, T., & Drukker, M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258346 · Cited by 200
Identifying Key Factors Associated with Aggression on Acute Inpatient Psychiatric Wards
Bowers, L., Allan, T., Simpson, A., Jones, J., Van Der Merwe, M., & Jeffery, D. (2009) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840802710829 · Cited by 171
Ongoing challenges responding to behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia
Ostaszkiewicz, J., Lakhan, P., O'Connell, B., & Hawkins, M. (2015) · International Nursing Review · doi:10.1111/inr.12180 · Cited by 38
Systematic review of planned care transitions for persons with dementia
Ray, C. A., Ingram, V., & Cohen-Mansfield, J. (2015) · Neurodegenerative Disease Management · doi:10.2217/nmt.15.23 · Cited by 29
Arik, C., Anat, R., & Arie, E. (2012) · Emergency Medicine International · doi:10.1155/2012/603215 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Needham, I., Abderhalden, C., Halfens, R. J. G., Fischer, J. E., & Dassen, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01-19
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 283-296
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W1995810718
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.