| Title |
Assessing the Impact and Effectiveness of Hearing Voices Network Self-Help Groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Community Mental Health Journal, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10597-017-0148-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eleanor Longden, John Read, Jacqui Dillon |
| Abstract |
The Hearing Voices Network (HVN) is an influential service-user led organisation that promotes self-help as an important aspect of recovery. This study presents the first systematic assessment of the impact and effectiveness of HVN self-help groups. A customized 45-item questionnaire, the Hearing Voices Groups Survey, was sent to 62 groups affiliated with the English HVN. 101 responses were received. Group attendance was credited with a range of positive emotional, social and clinical outcomes. Aspects that were particularly valued included: opportunities to meet other voice hearers, provision of support that was unavailable elsewhere, and the group being a safe and confidential place to discuss difficult issues. Participants perceived HVN groups to facilitate recovery processes and to be an important resource for helping them cope with their experiences. Mental health professionals can use their expertise to support the successful running of these groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 | 43 | 43% |
| United States | 7 | 7% |
| Spain | 5 | 5% |
| Australia | 4 | 4% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 65 | 66% |
| Scientists | 18 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 17% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 47 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 39 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. 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 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#354,122
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#10
of 1,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,473
of 330,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 330,932 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them