| Title |
Screening and case finding instruments for depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002792.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Gilbody, Allan House, Trevor Sheldon |
| Abstract |
Screening or case finding instruments have been advocated as a simple, quick and inexpensive method to improve detection and management of depression in non-specialist settings, such as primary care and the general hospital. However, screening/case finding is just one of a number of strategies that have been advocated to improve the quality of care for depression. The adoption of this seemingly simple and effective strategy should be underpinned by evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 268 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 62 | 22% |
| Unknown | 70 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 38% |
| Psychology | 35 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 79 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,164
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,387
of 70,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 70,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.