↓ Skip to main content

Closing the False Divide: Sustainable Approaches to Integrating Mental Health Services into Primary Care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Closing the False Divide: Sustainable Approaches to Integrating Mental Health Services into Primary Care
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3967-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurt Kroenke, Jurgen Unutzer

Abstract

Mental disorders account for 25% of all health-related disability worldwide. More patients receive treatment for mental disorders in the primary care sector than in the mental health specialty setting. However, brief visits, inadequate reimbursement, deficits in primary care provider (PCP) training, and competing demands often limit the capacity of the PCP to produce optimal outcomes in patients with common mental disorders. More than 80 randomized trials have shown the benefits of collaborative care (CC) models for improving outcomes of patients with depression and anxiety. Six key components of CC include a population-based approach, measurement-based care, treatment to target strategy, care management, supervision by a mental health professional (MHP), and brief psychological therapies. Multiple trials have also shown that CC for depression is equally or more cost-effective than many of the current treatments for medical disorders. Factors that may facilitate the implementation of CC include a more favorable alignment of medical and mental health services in accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes; greater use of telecare as well as automated outcome monitoring; identification of patients who might benefit most from CC; and systematic training of both PCPs and MHPs in integrated team-based care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 12%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 39 19%
Unknown 47 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 20%
Psychology 37 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 57 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,295,173
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,776
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,205
of 314,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#35
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 314,894 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 63% of its contemporaries.