↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 1,787)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
1056 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
739 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2003
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-1-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Philip Snaith

Abstract

There is a need to assess the contribution of mood disorder, especially anxiety and depression, in order to understand the experience of suffering in the setting of medical practice. Most physicians are aware of this aspect of the illness of their patients but many feel incompetent to provide the patient with reliable information. The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale, or HADS, was designed to provide a simple yet reliable tool for use in medical practice. The term 'hospital' in its title suggests that it is only valid in such a setting but many studies conducted throughout the world have confirmed that it is valid when used in community settings and primary care medical practice. It should be emphasised that self-assessment scales are only valid for screening purposes; definitive diagnosis must rest on the process of clinical examination.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 739 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 1%
United States 5 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 710 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 155 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 119 16%
Researcher 90 12%
Student > Bachelor 85 12%
Student > Postgraduate 53 7%
Other 157 21%
Unknown 80 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 243 33%
Psychology 155 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 77 10%
Social Sciences 29 4%
Neuroscience 26 4%
Other 87 12%
Unknown 122 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 15 October 2020.
All research outputs
#537,136
of 16,209,970 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#15
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#514,035
of 15,165,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#15
of 1,786 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,209,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 15,165,287 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,786 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.