| Title |
Training community mental health staff in Guangzhou, China: evaluation of the effect of a new training model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-015-0660-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jie Li, Juan Li, Graham Thornicroft, Hui Yang, Wen Chen, Yuanguang Huang |
| Abstract |
Increasing numbers of people with mental disorders receive services at primary care in China. The aims of this study are to evaluate impact of a new training course and supervision for community mental health staff to enhance their levels of mental health knowledge and to reduce their stigmatization toward people with mental illness. A total of 77 community mental health staff from eight regions in Guangzhou in China were recruited for the study.4 regions were randomly allocated to the new training model group, and 4 to the old training model group. Levels of mental health knowledge were measured by purpose-made assessment schedule and by the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS). Stigma was evaluated by the Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA) and the Reported and Intended Behavior Scale (RIBS). Evaluation questionnaires were given at the beginning of course, at the end, and at 6 month and at 12 month follow-up. After the training period, the 6-month, and the 12-month, knowledge scores of the intervention group were higher than the control group. At 6-month and 12-month follow-up, means scores of MAKS of the intervention group increased more than the control group (both p < 0.05) when age, sex, marriage status, title and time were controlled for. At 6-month follow-up, means scores of MICA of the intervention group decreased more than that of the control group (p < 0.01). At after-training, at 6-months, and at 12-months, mean scores of RIBS of the intervention group increased more than the control (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.001) when age, sex, marriage status, title and time were controlled for. Compared with the traditional training course and supervision, the new course improved community mental health staff knowledge of mental disorders, improving their attitudes toward people with mental disorder, and increasing their willingness to have contact with people with mental disorder. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 48 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 31 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 52 | 32% |
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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,099
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,215
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,539
of 284,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#83
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 284,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 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.