Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42476733›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Challenging behaviour by patients or close contacts, as experienced by healthcare workers in adult general and university hospital care: a scoping review protocol.

Philomѐne Margit Klok, Lotte Broersma, Wichor Matthijs Bramer, Indira Tendolkar, Maarten Van Schijndel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Philomѐne Margit KlokDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands margit.klok@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8802-5442
Lotte BroersmaDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wichor Matthijs BramerMedical Library, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2681-9180
Indira TendolkarDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maarten Van SchijndelDepartment of Psychiatry, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1219-1118

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealthcare professionals in general and academic hospitals increasingly face challenging behaviour from patients and their close contacts, particularly in acute care settings. Ranging from aggression to socially inappropriate actions, such behaviour is understood as interactional and context-dependent. Yet research largely focuses on verbal and physical aggression, leaving other forms and hospital context underexplored, despite concerns about staff safety, workforce sustainability and care quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review aims to map literature on challenging behaviour in adult general and university hospital care (types of behaviour, prevalence, associated risk and protective factors, contextual influences, management and prevention strategies, definitions, conceptualisations of challenging behaviour and their implications for research, practice and policy). We will include adult patients and their close contacts (eg, family members, informal caregivers) (≥18 years) receiving somatic care in general or university hospitals. Psychiatric, forensic, prison, long-term care, rehabilitation and specialised geriatric settings will be excluded. The review focuses on behaviour within patient-provider or close contact-provider interactions. Peer-reviewed studies of any design and grey literature (eg, guidelines, policy documents, toolkits) published in English from 2010 onwards will be included. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by grey-literature searches in Google, Overton and relevant organisational websites. Data will be charted on study characteristics, types and prevalence of behaviour, associated factors, contextual features and management and prevention strategies and synthesised narratively and in tables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as the review uses publicly available sources. Although formal ethics review was not required, the authors considered the broader ethical dimensions of the work, including the potentially sensitive and stigmatising nature of the concept of challenging behaviour, the role of contextual and organisational factors and the responsible involvement of stakeholders and experts by experience in interpreting and contextualising the findings. Findings will be disseminated through open-access publication, conference presentations, stakeholder meetings, local/national practice and policy networks. Stakeholder collaboration supports safe, effective care, enhances staff safety and supports high-quality, patient-centred care and workforce sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI10.17605/OSF.IO/GA3EX.

Indexed as

AggressionHealth PersonnelHospitals, UniversityProblem BehaviorAdultHospitals, GeneralHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicBehaviorDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHospitals

Identifiers

PMID42476733
PMCPMC13386044

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.