| Title |
Good practice in mental health care for socially marginalised groups in Europe: a qualitative study of expert views in 14 countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-248 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Priebe, Aleksandra Matanov, Ruth Schor, Christa Straßmayr, Henrique Barros, Margaret M Barry, José Manuel Díaz-Olalla, Edina Gabor, Tim Greacen, Petra Holcnerová, Ulrike Kluge, Vincent Lorant, Jacek Moskalewicz, Aart H Schene, Gloria Macassa, Andrea Gaddini |
| Abstract |
Socially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population and can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particular challenge, and evidence on good practice is required. This study explored the experiences and views of experts in 14 European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sex workers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 217 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
| Researcher | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 38 | 17% |
| Unknown | 58 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 36 | 16% |
| Psychology | 32 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Unknown | 66 | 30% |
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 03 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,378,772
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,704
of 14,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,209
of 160,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#69
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 160,394 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 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 57% of its contemporaries.