| Title |
Innovation and Integrity: Desiderata and Future Directions for Prevention and Intervention Science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-018-0869-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Beelmann, Tina Malti, Gil G. Noam, Simon Sommer |
| Abstract |
This article summarizes essential implications of the papers within this special issue and discusses directions for future prevention and intervention research on conceptual issues, methodological and transfer-related challenges and opportunities. We identify a need to move from programs to principles in intervention research and encourage the implementation of research on potential mechanisms underlying intervention effectiveness. In addition, current methodological issues in intervention research are highlighted, including advancements in methodology and statistical procedures, extended outcome assessments, replication studies, and a thorough examination of potential biases. We further discuss transfer-related issues, for example the need for more research on the flexibility and adaptability of programs and intervention approaches as well as more general problems in knowledge translation reasoning the need for enhanced communication between practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. Finally, we briefly touch on the need to discuss the relation between single intervention programs, the mental health system, and changes of contextual conditions at the macro level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 13% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 13% |
| Austria | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,700,342
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#354
of 1,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,654
of 441,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 441,127 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.