| Title |
Psychosocial interventions by general practitioners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003494.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcus J.H. Huibers, Anna Beurskens, Gijs Bleijenberg, Constant Paul van Schayck |
| Abstract |
Many patients visit their general practitioner (GP) because of problems that are psychosocial in origin. However, for many of these problems there is no evidence-based treatment available in primary care, and these patients place time-consuming demands on their GP. Therefore, GPs could benefit from tools to help these patients more effectively and efficiently. In this light, it is important to assess whether structured psychosocial interventions might be an appropriate tool for GPs. Previous reviews have shown that psychosocial interventions in primary care seem more effective than usual care. However, these interventions were mostly performed by health professionals other than the GP. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 22% |
| Unknown | 40 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 64 | 35% |
| Psychology | 30 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Unknown | 47 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,358,751
of 23,914,787 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,087
of 12,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,971
of 69,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,914,787 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 69,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.