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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The global burden of mental and substance use disorders: changes in estimating burden between GBD1990 and GBD2010
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s2045796014000237 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. J. Baxter, A. J. Ferrari, H. E. Erskine, F. J. Charlson, L. Degenhardt, H. A. Whiteford |
| Abstract |
Background. The main aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the methodological approaches of the new Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study (GBD 2010) with the original study conducted for 1990 (GBD 1990), in terms of calculating burden for mental and substance use disorders. Methods. We reviewed the conceptual and methodological changes to GBD burden calculations in the GBD 2010 study, compared with previous studies. We then discuss the possible implications of these changes with respect to burden estimates for mental and substance use disorders. Results. It is not possible to compare burden estimates arising from the GBD 1990 study with the most recent burden estimates. There have been important advances in the categorisation and definition of mental disorders, and the input and computation of epidemiological models for disease distribution. There have also been major changes to conceptual and social value choices aimed at addressing concerns that arose following publication of earlier GBD studies. Conclusion. Advancements to the GBD conceptual framework and method of calculating burden estimates has led to more accurate and equitable consideration of the burden for mental and substance use disorders. Proposed annual updates of GBD estimates by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation provide an opportunity to continue to advance the evidence base that underpins the quantification of disease burden. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 39% |
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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
#807
of 901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,604
of 241,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 241,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.