| Title |
Prevalence of mental diseases in Austria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Medica Austriaca, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00508-018-1316-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Agata Łaszewska, August Österle, Johannes Wancata, Judit Simon |
| Abstract |
Addressing the growing burden of mental diseases is a public health priority. Nevertheless, many countries lack reliable estimates of the proportion of the population affected, which are crucial for health and social policy planning. This study aimed to collect existing evidence on the prevalence of mental diseases in Austria. A systematic review was conducted using MeSH, EMTREE and free-text terms in seven bibliographic databases. In addition, the references of included papers and relevant Austria-specific websites were searched. Articles published after 1996 pertaining to the Austrian adult population and presenting prevalence data for mental diseases were included in the analysis. A total of 2612 records were identified in the database search, 19 of which were included in the analysis, 13 were community-based studies and 6 examined institutionalized populations. Sample sizes ranged from 200 to 15,474. The evidence was centered around depression (n = 6, 32%), eating disorders (n = 4, 21%) and alcohol dependence (n = 3, 16%). While most studies (n = 10, 53%) used questionnaires and scales to identify mental diseases, seven studies used structured clinical interviews, and two studies examined use of psychotropic drugs. Due to the diversity of methodologies, no statistical pooling of prevalence estimates was possible. Information on the prevalence of mental diseases in Austria is limited and comparability between studies is restricted. A variety of diagnostic instruments, targeted populations and investigated diseases contribute to discrepancies in the prevalence rates. A systematic, large-scale study on the prevalence of mental diseases in Austria is needed for comprehensive and robust epidemiological evidence. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 26% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,371,676
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Acta Medica Austriaca
#128
of 967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,113
of 450,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Medica Austriaca
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 450,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.