The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Causes and management of patient aggression and violence: staff and patient perspectives
Abstract
Aim. This paper reports a study of staff and patient perspectives on the causes of patient aggression and the way it is managed. Background. The incidence of aggression in healthcare is reportedly on the increase, and concerns about the management of this problem are growing. Method. A convenience sample of 80 patients and 82 nurses from three inpatient mental healthcare wards were surveyed using The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. A further five patients and five nurses from the same sample participated in a number of follow‐up interviews. Results. Patients perceived environmental conditions and poor communication to be a significant precursor of aggressive behaviour. Nurses, in comparison, viewed the patients’ mental illnesses to be the main reason for aggression, although the negative impact of the inpatient environment was recognized. From interview responses, it was evident that both sets of respondents were dissatisfied with a restrictive and under‐resourced provision that leads to interpersonal tensions. Conclusion. There are differences between the views of staff and patients about reasons for aggression and its management. Future approaches therefore need to be developed that address these opposing views. For example, training in the use of fundamental therapeutic communication skills was advocated by patients, whilst the need for greater attention to organizational deficits was advocated by nurses. A move away from reliance on the use of medication was also felt to be necessary. Evaluation of local needs and practices must be an integral part of this process.
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
Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus
Garriga, M., Pacchiarotti, I., Kasper, S., Zeller, S. L., Allen, M. H., Vázquez, G., Baldaçara, L., San, L., McAllister-Williams, R. H., Fountoulakis, K. N., et al. (2016) · The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007 · Cited by 309
Magnavita, N., & Heponiemi, T. (2012) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-108 · Cited by 274
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
Tingleff, E. B., Bradley, S. K., Gildberg, F. A., Munksgaard, G., & Hounsgaard, L. (2017) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/jpm.12410 · Cited by 127
Early detection of risk factors for seclusion and restraint: a prospective study
Georgieva, I., Vesselinov, R., & Mulder, C. L. (2012) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1751-7893.2011.00330.x · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Duxbury, J., & Whittington, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-05-09
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 469-478
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2031995109
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.89
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Causes and management of patient aggression and violence: staff and patient perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03426.x
- The paper
- Duxbury, J., & Whittington, R. (2005). Causes and management of patient aggression and violence: staff and patient perspectives. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03426.x
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.