| Title |
A commentary on evidenced-based parenting programs: redressing misconceptions of the empirical support for Triple P
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-145 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew R Sanders, John A Pickering, James N Kirby, Karen MT Turner, Alina Morawska, Trevor Mazzucchelli, Alan Ralph, Kate Sofronoff |
| Abstract |
A meta-analytic review of the Triple P-Positive Parenting program by Wilson et al., recently published in BMC Medicine, claimed to demonstrate that although Triple P is widely disseminated and adopted, the evidence attesting to the effectiveness of the program is not as convincing as it may appear. Although this review addresses the important issue of evaluation and reporting methods within evidence-based interventions, we contend that the Wilson et al. review contains a number of significant conceptual, methodological and interpretational inadequacies that render the key conclusions of their review problematic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Bahrain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 22% |
| Researcher | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,197,523
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#840
of 3,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,466
of 275,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#18
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 275,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.