| Title |
Community-Partnered Cluster-Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Community Engagement and Planning or Resources for Services to Address Depression Disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-013-2484-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth B. Wells, Loretta Jones, Bowen Chung, Elizabeth L. Dixon, Lingqi Tang, Jim Gilmore, Cathy Sherbourne, Victoria K. Ngo, Michael K. Ong, Susan Stockdale, Esmeralda Ramos, Thomas R. Belin, Jeanne Miranda |
| Abstract |
Depression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 350 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 343 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 13% |
| Researcher | 46 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 68 | 19% |
| Unknown | 89 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 53 | 15% |
| Psychology | 43 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 8% |
| Unknown | 105 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,045,254
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#884
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,176
of 195,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#15
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 195,943 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.