↓ Skip to main content

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0530-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yelena Petrosyan, Yeva Sahakyan, Jan M. Barnsley, Kerry Kuluski, Barbara Liu, Walter P. Wodchis

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework. The search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients. The identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 19%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,962,490
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,256
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,879
of 313,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 313,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.