↓ Skip to main content

Community-Sourced Intervention Programs: Review of Submissions in Response to a Statewide Call for “Promising Practices”

Overview of attention for article published in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Community-Sourced Intervention Programs: Review of Submissions in Response to a Statewide Call for “Promising Practices”
Published in
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10488-015-0650-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron R. Lyon, Michael D. Pullmann, Sarah Cusworth Walker, Gabrielle D’Angelo

Abstract

This study was initiated to add to the nascent literature on locally-grown intervention programs in the youth mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice service sectors, many of which demonstrate practice-based or community-defined evidence, but may not have been subjected to empirical evaluation. Characteristics of applications submitted in response to three public calls for additions to an inventory of research-supported intervention programs were reviewed on evidence for effectiveness, the use of key quality assurance (QA) elements (e.g., clearly specified training or integrity monitoring procedures), and cultural specificity. Findings indicate that four QA processes were identified in approximately half of all submissions: a specific initial training process, the existence of intervention integrity measures, routine outcome monitoring, and ongoing support post-training. An initial training process and integrity measurement were more commonly described among programs determined to have greater research evidence for their effectiveness. Overall, cultural elements were described relatively infrequently and most often reflected surface-level program delivery characteristics (e.g., offering services in languages other than English). Discussion is focused on the alignment of submitted programs with the larger literatures focused on implementation science and cultural competence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 28%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 April 2015.
All research outputs
#19,246,640
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#586
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,288
of 266,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 266,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.