↓ Skip to main content

Community Protection versus Individual Healing: Two Traditions in Community Mental Health

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
16 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.
Article details
Title
Community Protection versus Individual Healing: Two Traditions in Community Mental Health
Published in
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/bsl.2297
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This article identifies two major traditions that drive the mandate for a community mental health care system-community protection and individual healing. It discusses the historical antecedents of these two traditions and how these traditions relate to different visions of what the "common good" means. It then discusses how they both operate in the current US-based system, creating inherent conflicts and tensions, and gives specific examples from the personal and professional experiences of the authors. The article proposes ways to reduce the tension and discusses what sacrifices and compromises this resolution would entail for the US community mental health system. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 7 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Unknown 7 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,945,941
of 28,832,041 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#202
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,325
of 335,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,832,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 335,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.