↓ Skip to main content

Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
48 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, July 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x691721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Kronenberg, Tim Doran, Maria Goddard, Tony Kendrick, Simon Gilbody, Ceri R Dare, Lauren Aylott, Rowena Jacobs

Abstract

Serious mental illness (SMI) - which comprises long-term conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses - has enormous costs for patients and society. In many countries, people with SMI are treated solely in primary care, and have particular needs for physical care. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to create a list of quality indicators relevant to patients with SMI that could be captured using routine data, and which could be used to monitor or incentivise better-quality primary care. A systematic literature review, combined with a search of quality indicator databases and guidelines. The authors assessed whether indicators could be measured from routine data and the quality of the evidence. Out of 1847 papers and quality indicator databases identified, 27 were included, from which 59 quality indicators were identified, covering six domains. Of the 59 indicators, 52 could be assessed using routine data. The evidence base underpinning these indicators was relatively weak, and was primarily based on expert opinion rather than trial evidence. With appropriate adaptation for different contexts, and in line with the relative responsibilities of primary and secondary care, use of the quality indicators has the potential to improve care and to improve the physical and mental health of people with SMI. However, before the indicators can be used to monitor or incentivise primary care quality, more robust links need to be established, with improved patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Researcher 13 10%
Other 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 43 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 47 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 21 July 2022.
All research outputs
#906,642
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#413
of 4,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,923
of 314,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#19
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 314,854 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 93% 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 done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.