| Title |
Reducing suicidal thoughts in the Australian general population through web-based self-help: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-015-0589-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bregje AJ van Spijker, Alison L Calear, Philip J Batterham, Andrew J Mackinnon, John A Gosling, Ad JFM Kerkhof, Daniela Solomon, Helen Christensen |
| Abstract |
Suicidal thoughts are common in the general population, causing significant disability. However, a substantial number of people struggling with suicidality do not access appropriate services. Online self-help may help overcome barriers to help-seeking. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of an online self-help program targeted at reducing suicidal thoughts compared with an attention-matched control condition in the Australian adult population. This trial is based on a Dutch self-help program, which was found to be effective in reducing suicidal thoughts. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 286 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 15% |
| Researcher | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 15% |
| Unknown | 69 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 95 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 84 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,541,585
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,187
of 6,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,983
of 256,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#53
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 256,796 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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 51% of its contemporaries.