| Title |
Screening for Depression in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2015.18392 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Albert L. Siu, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, David C. Grossman, Linda Ciofu Baumann, Karina W. Davidson, Mark Ebell, Francisco A. R. García, Matthew Gillman, Jessica Herzstein, Alex R. Kemper, Alex H. Krist, Ann E. Kurth, Douglas K. Owens, William R. Phillips, Maureen G. Phipps, Michael P. Pignone |
| Abstract |
Update of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for depression in adults. The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in adult populations, including older adults and pregnant and postpartum women; the accuracy of depression screening instruments; and the benefits and harms of depression treatment in these populations. This recommendation applies to adults 18 years and older. The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women. Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up. (B recommendation). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 339 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 125 | 37% |
| Spain | 17 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 13 | 4% |
| Canada | 11 | 3% |
| Mexico | 6 | 2% |
| France | 5 | 1% |
| Colombia | 4 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 4 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 30 | 9% |
| Unknown | 120 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 243 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 55 | 16% |
| Scientists | 32 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 709 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 703 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 97 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 71 | 10% |
| Researcher | 64 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 64 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 8% |
| Other | 144 | 20% |
| Unknown | 214 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 188 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 96 | 14% |
| Psychology | 75 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 71 | 10% |
| Unknown | 234 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1335. 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 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#9,793
of 25,632,496 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#268
of 36,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113
of 407,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#3
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,632,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 407,356 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.