↓ Skip to main content

Intersectoral policy for severe and persistent mental illness: review of approaches in a sample of high-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intersectoral policy for severe and persistent mental illness: review of approaches in a sample of high-income countries
Published in
Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1017/gmh.2015.16
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Diminic, G. Carstensen, M. G. Harris, N. Reavley, J. Pirkis, C. Meurk, I. Wong, B. Bassilios, H. A. Whiteford

Abstract

It is increasingly recognised that intersectoral linkages between mental health and other health and support sectors are essential for providing effective care for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. The extent to which intersectoral collaboration and approaches to achieve it are detailed in mental health policy has not yet been systematically examined. Thirty-eight mental health policy documents from 22 jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada were identified via a web search. Information was extracted and synthesised on: the extent to which intersectoral collaboration was an objective or guiding principle of policy; the sectors acknowledged as targets for collaboration; and the characteristics of detailed intersectoral collaboration efforts. Recurring themes in objectives/guiding principles included a whole of government approach, coordination and integration of services, and increased social and economic participation. All jurisdictions acknowledged the importance of intersectoral collaboration, particularly with employment, education, housing, community, criminal justice, drug and alcohol, physical health, Indigenous, disability, emergency and aged care services. However, the level of detail provided varied widely. Where detailed strategies were described, the most common linkage mechanisms were joint service planning through intersectoral coordinating committees or liaison workers, interagency agreements, staff training and joint service provision. Sectors and mechanisms identified for collaboration were largely consistent across jurisdictions. Little information was provided about strategies for accountability, resourcing, monitoring and evaluation of intersectoral collaboration initiatives, highlighting an area for further improvement. Examples of collaboration detailed in the policies provide a useful resource for other countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Psychology 12 16%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 29 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health
#159
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,107
of 278,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 278,035 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.