| Title |
Appreciating Complexity in Adolescent Self-Harm Risk Factors: Psychological Profiling in a Longitudinal Community Sample
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10964-017-0721-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Stanford, Michael P. Jones, Jennifer L. Hudson |
| Abstract |
Past research identifies a number of risk factors for adolescent self-harm, but often fails to account for overlap between these factors. This study investigated the underlying, broader concepts by identifying different psychological profiles among adolescents. We then compared new self-harm rates over a six-month period across different psychological profiles. Australian high school students (n = 326, 68.1% female) completed a questionnaire including a broad range of psychological and socioenvironmental risk and protective factors. Non-hierarchical cluster analysis produced six groups with different psychological profiles at baseline and rate of new self-harm at follow-up. The lowest rate was 1.4% in a group that appeared psychologically healthy; the highest rate was 37.5% in a group that displayed numerous psychological difficulties. Four groups with average self-harm had varied psychological profiles including low impulsivity, anxiety, impulsivity, and poor use of positive coping strategies. Identifying multiple profiles with distinct psychological characteristics can improve detection, guide prevention, and tailor treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 40 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#657,033
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#114
of 1,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,533
of 319,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 319,347 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.