| Title |
Intimate Relationships and Psychopathology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark A. Whisman, Donald H. Baucom |
| Abstract |
Relationship functioning and individual mental health and well-being are strongly associated with one another. In this article, we first review the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between relationship discord and various types of psychopathology, We then review findings suggesting that relationship discord is associated with poorer outcome for individual-based treatments for psychopathology and that, generally, relationship discord does not improve following individual-based treatments for psychopathology. Finally, we present a model for conceptualizing work with couples in which one partner has a psychiatric disorder and review the efficacy of couple-based interventions in the treatment for psychiatric disorders, with a focus on substance-related, mood, and anxiety disorders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 221 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 25 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 47 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 120 | 54% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 4% |
| Unknown | 57 | 26% |
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 05 August 2014.
All research outputs
#6,815,932
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#223
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,845
of 246,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 246,095 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.