↓ Skip to main content

Community Psychiatry Tracks for Residents: A Review of Four Programs

Overview of attention for article published in Community Mental Health Journal, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Community Psychiatry Tracks for Residents: A Review of Four Programs
Published in
Community Mental Health Journal, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10597-013-9661-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia L. Reardon, Robert M. Factor, Carolyn J. Brenner, Prameet Singh, Joyce A. Spurgeon

Abstract

Many psychiatry residency graduates end up practicing at least in part in community settings. However, declining funding and other issues prevent many residency programs from offering robust community psychiatry training to all of their residents. Accordingly, some residency programs have developed Community Psychiatry Tracks, with the goal of developing future leaders in public sector psychiatry. We cataloged US psychiatry residency programs offering Community Psychiatry Tracks by reviewing the literature and surveying training directors and members of the American Association of Community Psychiatrists. Authors from each of the four programs found to be actively offering such tracks describe their track curricula, from which we elucidated common and variable elements as well as strengths and weaknesses and then make recommendations for other programs wishing to start a track. A Community Psychiatry Track preliminarily appears to be a well-received way to offer enhanced Community Psychiatry training to interested residents, to recruit medical students to residency programs, to offer opportunities for collaboration between residents and faculty members, and to expand opportunities for scholarly work by residents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,361,534
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#1,129
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,005
of 307,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 307,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.