↓ Skip to main content

Individual and group-based parenting programmes for the treatment of physical child abuse and neglect

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Individual and group-based parenting programmes for the treatment of physical child abuse and neglect
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005463.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Barlow, Isabelle Johnston, Denise Kendrick, Leon Polnay, Sarah Stewart-Brown

Abstract

Child physical abuse and neglect are important public health problems and recent estimates of their prevalence suggest that they are considerably more common than had hitherto been realised. Many of the risk factors for child abuse and neglect are not amenable to change in the short term. Intervening to change parenting practices may, however, be important in its treatment. Parenting programmes are focused, short-term interventions aimed at improving parenting practices in addition to other outcomes (many of which are risk factors for child abuse e.g. parental psychopathology, and parenting attitudes and practices), and may therefore be useful in the treatment of physically abusive or neglectful parents.

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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 147 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 23%
Student > Master 35 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 36 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 31%
Social Sciences 44 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Unspecified 10 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 4%
Other 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,064,196
of 12,363,141 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,007
of 8,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,135
of 142,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,363,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 142,799 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.