↓ Skip to main content

Recovery practice in community mental health teams: national survey

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Psychiatry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Recovery practice in community mental health teams: national survey
Published in
British Journal of Psychiatry, January 2018
DOI 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.160739
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Leamy, E. Clarke, C. Le Boutillier, V. Bird, R. Choudhury, R. MacPherson, F. Pesola, K. Sabas, J. Williams, P. Williams, M. Slade

Abstract

There is consensus about the importance of 'recovery' in mental health services, but the link between recovery orientation of mental health teams and personal recovery of individuals has been underresearched. To investigate differences in team leader, clinician and service user perspectives of recovery orientation of community adult mental health teams in England. In six English mental health National Health Service (NHS) trusts, randomly chosen community adult mental health teams were surveyed. A random sample of ten patients, one team leader and a convenience sample of five clinicians were surveyed from each team. All respondents rated the recovery orientation of their team using parallel versions of the Recovery Self Assessment (RSA). In addition, service users also rated their own personal recovery using the Questionnaire about Processes of Recovery (QPR). Team leaders (n = 22) rated recovery orientation higher than clinicians (n = 109) or patients (n = 120) (Wald(2) = 7.0, P = 0.03), and both NHS trust and team type influenced RSA ratings. Patient-rated recovery orientation was a predictor of personal recovery (b = 0.58, 95% CI 0.31-0.85, P<0.001). Team leaders and clinicians with experience of mental illness (39%) or supporting a family member or friend with mental illness (76%) did not differ in their RSA ratings from other team leaders or clinicians. Compared with team leaders, frontline clinicians and service users have less positive views on recovery orientation. Increasing recovery orientation may support personal recovery.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 99 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 26 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,805,597
of 25,468,789 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Psychiatry
#5,156
of 6,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,478
of 450,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Psychiatry
#4,334
of 5,312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,789 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 450,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,312 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.