↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
5 policy sources
twitter
17 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Interventions to increase access to or uptake of physical health screening in people with severe mental illness: a realist review
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019412
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To identify and evaluate interventions aimed at increasing uptake of, or access to, physical health screening by adults with severe mental illness; to examine why interventions might work. Realist review. Primary, secondary and tertiary care. A systematic search identified 1448 studies, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from Australia (n=3), Canada (n=1), Hong Kong (n=1), UK (n=11) and USA (n=6). The studies focused on breast cancer screening, infection preventive services and metabolic syndrome (MS) screening by targeting MS-related risk factors. The interventions could be divided into those focusing on (1) health service delivery changes (12 studies), using quality improvement, randomised controlled trial, cluster randomised feasibility trial, retrospective audit, cross-sectional study and satisfaction survey designs and (2) tests of tools designed to facilitate screening (10 studies) using consecutive case series, quality improvement, retrospective evaluation and pre-post audit study designs. All studies reported improved uptake of screening, or that patients had received screening they would not have had without the intervention. No estimation of overall effect size was possible due to heterogeneity in study design and quality. The following factors may contribute to intervention success: staff and stakeholder involvement in screening, staff flexibility when taking physical measurements (eg, using adapted equipment), strong links with primary care and having a pharmacist on the ward. A range of interventions may be effective, but better quality research is needed to determine any effect size. Researchers should consider how interventions may work when designing and testing them in order to target better the specific needs of this population in the most appropriate setting. Behaviour-change interventions to reduce identified barriers of patient and health professional resistance to screening this population are required. Resource constraints, clarity over professional roles and better coordination with primary care need to be addressed.

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 profiles of 17 X users 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 180 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 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 68 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 12%
Psychology 12 7%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 74 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 February 2025.
All research outputs
#1,740,288
of 34,279,751 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,846
of 29,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,964
of 497,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#99
of 631 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,279,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 497,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 631 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.