↓ Skip to main content

Technology-Focused Family Interventions in Pediatric Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 446)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Technology-Focused Family Interventions in Pediatric Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10880-018-9565-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly S. Canter, Jennifer Christofferson, Michele A. Scialla, Anne E. Kazak

Abstract

This systematic review provides a synthesis of randomized-controlled trials of technology-focused family interventions for children with chronic illnesses and their families, focused on describing the current state of the literature and generating recommendations for future family systems work in the field of eHealth/mHealth. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. No identified studies featured an mHealth delivery modality. Relevant data were extracted and studies were assessed for quality. There was great variability with regard to intervention factors (e.g., format) and family-centered intervention targets. There is some evidence that eHealth interventions may lead to improvements in particular domains of family functioning (e.g., family conflict) for some groups of participants. However, mixed results and selection of numerous different intervention targets by investigators make it challenging to draw summative conclusions about the overall effectiveness of family systems eHealth interventions. Future research should move beyond feasibility/acceptability studies and examine family-centered processes as primary outcomes. Future research should also consider novel intervention formats to determine whether intervention effects are more robust for certain groups (e.g., individuals who prefer electronic intervention delivery to in-person intervention).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 44 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 17%
Psychology 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 52 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,723,517
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#38
of 446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,573
of 326,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 326,937 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 82% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.