| Title |
User-held personalised information for routine care of people with severe mental illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001711.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simone Farrelly, Gill E Brown, Clare Flach, Elizabeth Barley, Richard Laugharne, Claire Henderson |
| Abstract |
It is important to seek cost-effective methods of improving the care and outcome of those with serious mental illnesses. User-held records, where the person with the illness holds all or some personal information relating to the course and care of their illness, are now the norm in some clinical settings. Their value for those with severe mental illnesses is unknown. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 236 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 15% |
| Researcher | 32 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 16% |
| Unknown | 54 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 27% |
| Psychology | 40 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 9% |
| Unknown | 62 | 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,269,898
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,024
of 12,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,855
of 209,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 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 12,544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 209,433 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.