| Title |
Potential Impact of Incorporating a Patient-Selected Support Person into mHealth for Depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-015-3208-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James E. Aikens, Ranak Trivedi, Alicia Heapy, Paul N. Pfeiffer, John D. Piette |
| Abstract |
Although telephone care management improves depression outcomes, its implementation as a standalone strategy is often not feasible in resource-constrained settings. Moreover, little research has examined the potential role of self-management support from patients' trusted confidants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 237 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 16% |
| Researcher | 37 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 20% |
| Unknown | 45 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 49 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 12% |
| Unknown | 61 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 30 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,565,039
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,879
of 8,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,514
of 369,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#29
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 369,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.