↓ Skip to main content

Grief and Traumatic Grief in Children in the Context of Mass Trauma

Overview of attention for article published in Current Psychiatry Reports, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Grief and Traumatic Grief in Children in the Context of Mass Trauma
Published in
Current Psychiatry Reports, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11920-015-0577-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atle Dyregrov, Alison Salloum, Pål Kristensen, Kari Dyregrov

Abstract

Children who have had someone close die as a result of a mass trauma event such as war, armed conflict, acts of terror, political violence, torture, mass accidents, and natural disasters are at risk for biopsychosocial problems. Research on how to classify when grief becomes complicated or traumatic in children is scarce, and while functioning level may provide a good indication, assessing functioning may be difficult in mass trauma environments where routines and structure are often lacking. There are promising trauma- and grief-focused interventions for children post-mass trauma, which are mostly provided in school settings. However, more advanced multi-method interventions are needed that address grief and trauma in the context of the child's overall mental health, parent/caregiver role in assisting the child, family system issues, ways to provide safe caring environments amidst chaos and change, and interventions that take into account local consumer perspectives, including the voices of children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 34%
Social Sciences 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 7 5%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 13 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,058,582
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#122
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,385
of 264,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 264,554 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.