↓ 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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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

Barlow J, Johnston I, Kendrick D, Polnay L, Stewart-Brown S

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 133 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 24%
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Other 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 33%
Social Sciences 41 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 21%
Unspecified 9 6%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Other 9 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#1,962,496
of 8,102,415 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,659
of 8,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,841
of 117,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,102,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 117,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.