↓ Skip to main content

A Psycho‐Educational Intervention for People with a Family History of Depression: Pilot Results

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
A Psycho‐Educational Intervention for People with a Family History of Depression: Pilot Results
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10897-016-0011-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bettina Meiser, Michelle Peate, Charlene Levitan, Philip B Mitchell, Lyndal Trevena, Kristine Barlow‐Stewart, Timothy Dobbins, Helen Christensen, Kerry A Sherman, Kate Dunlop, Peter R Schofield

Abstract

We developed and pilot-tested the first online psycho-educational intervention that specifically targets people with a family history of depression ('LINKS'). LINKS provides genetic risk information and evidence-rated information on preventive strategies for depression and incorporates a risk assessment tool and several videos using professional actors. LINKS was pilot-tested in the general practitioner (GP) setting. The patient sample included people with a family history of at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD). Patients attending participating GP practices were invited to enroll in the study by letter from their GP. Patients who self-identified as having at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with MDD or BD were eligible. Patients completed questionnaires, pre-post viewing LINKS, with measures assessing satisfaction, relevance, emotional impact and perceived improvement of understanding. Six GP practices participated, and 24 patients completed both questionnaires. Of these, all reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with LINKS, and 74 % reported that LINKS met their expectations, and 21 % that it exceeded their expectations. LINKS was judged highly acceptable by this sample of GP attendees, and results indicate that an assessment of its effectiveness in a larger controlled trial is warranted.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,825,784
of 24,849,927 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#677
of 1,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,697
of 329,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,849,927 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 329,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.