↓ Skip to main content

Patient advocacy and DSM-5

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Patient advocacy and DSM-5
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan J Stein, Katharine A Phillips

Abstract

The revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides a useful opportunity to revisit debates about the nature of psychiatric classification. An important debate concerns the involvement of mental health consumers in revisions of the classification. One perspective argues that psychiatric classification is a scientific process undertaken by scientific experts and that including consumers in the revision process is merely pandering to political correctness. A contrasting perspective is that psychiatric classification is a process driven by a range of different values and that the involvement of patients and patient advocates would enhance this process. Here we draw on our experiences with input from the public during the deliberations of the Obsessive Compulsive-Spectrum Disorders subworkgroup of DSM-5, to help make the argument that psychiatric classification does require reasoned debate on a range of different facts and values, and that it is appropriate for scientist experts to review their nosological recommendations in the light of rigorous consideration of patient experience and feedback.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Nigeria 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 39 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Professor 6 14%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 39%
Psychology 11 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 October 2014.
All research outputs
#369,069
of 6,228,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#492
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,111
of 99,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#27
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,228,985 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 1,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 99,557 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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.