| Title |
Qualitative Evaluation of a Peer Navigator Program for Latinos with Serious Mental Illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10488-017-0839-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay Sheehan, Alessandra Torres, Juana L. Lara, Deysi Paniagua, Jonathon E. Larson, John Mayes, Susan Doig, The Latino Consumer Research Team, Patrick W. Corrigan |
| Abstract |
Peer navigator programs (PNP) may help reduce physical health disparities for ethnic minorities with serious mental illness (SMI). However, specific aspects of PNP that are important to peer navigators and their clients are under-researched. A qualitative study explored the perspectives of service users (n = 15) and peer navigators (n = 5) participating in a randomized controlled trial of a PNP for Latinos with SMI. Results show PN engagement with service users spans diverse areas and that interactions with peers, trust, and accessibility are important from a service user perspective. PNs discussed needs for high-quality supervision, organizational support, and additional resources for undocumented Latinos. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 40% |
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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,918,263
of 24,877,044 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#510
of 685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,091
of 449,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,877,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 449,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.